LCRA TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORPORATION

Transcription

1 April 2016 LCRA TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORPORATION Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis Williamson County, Texas PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT CONTACT: Lisa Barko Meaux PHONE:

2 (This page left blank intentionally.)

3 PREPARED FOR: LCRA TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORPORATION PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS, INC.

4 (This page left blank intentionally. POWER ENGINEERS, INC.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT SCOPE OF THE PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED AGENCY ACTIONS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Transmission Line Design Considerations Typical Transmission Line Structures and Easements Substations TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Right-of-Way Preparation Structure Assembly and Erection Conductor and Shield Wire Installation Cleanup TRANSMISSION LINE MAINTENANCE SUBSTATION SITE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Substation Site Preparation Substation Construction Cleanup SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA PHYSIOGRAPHY GEOLOGY SOILS Soil Associations Prime Farmland Soils Hydric Soils MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES WATER RESOURCES Surface Water Ground Water Floodplains ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Vegetation HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE i

6 2.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Aquatic Habitat Threatened and Endangered Species COMMUNITY VALUES HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Existing Land Use Existing Linear Facilities and Other Features Transportation Facilities Aviation Facilities Communication Towers Parks and Recreation Areas SOCIOECONOMICS Population Trends Employment Leading Economic Sectors AESTHETICS CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural Background Literature and Records Review Previous Investigations High Probability Areas ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE CONSTRAINTS NATURAL RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES CONSTRAINT AREAS SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE SUBSTATION SELECTION AND EVALUATION ALTERNATIVE ROUTE SELECTION Preliminary Alternative Route Segments Public Involvement Program Open House Meetings Post Open House Meetings Internet Website HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE ii

7 Comments from Agencies and Officials ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE SUBSTATION SITES MODIFICATIONS TO THE PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS New Segments Segment Modifications Deleted Segments PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTES NATURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS Impacts on Geological Resources Impacts on Soils Impacts on Water Resources Surface Water Ground Water Floodplains Impacts on Ecosystems Vegetation Wildlife Threatened and Endangered Species Summary of Natural Resources Impacts HUMAN RESOURCE IMPACTS Socioeconomic Impacts Impacts on Community Values Impacts on Land Use Habitable Structures Utilizing/Paralleling Existing Transmission Line ROW Paralleling Other Existing Compatible ROW Paralleling Property Lines Paralleling Pipelines Overall Length of Routes Impacts on Transportation/Aviation Impacts on Parks and Recreation Impacts on Electronic Communication Facilities Impacts on Aesthetics HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE iii

8 5.2.8 Summary of Human Resources Impacts CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS Direct Impacts Mitigation Summary of Cultural Resource Impacts LIST OF PREPARERS REFERENCES CITED APPENDICES: A Agency and Other Correspondence B Public Involvement C Habitable Structures and Other Land Features in the Vicinity of Primary Alternative Routes D Figure 4-27 E Figure 5-1 F LCRA TSC s Oak Wilt Policy G Karst and Salamander Impact Analysis for the Proposed 138 kv Leander- Round Rock Transmission Line Project, William County, Texas HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE iv

9 FIGURES: Figure 1-1 Project Area Figure 1-2 Typical Double-Circuit 138-kV Pole Tangent Figure 1-3 Typical Double-Circuit 138-kV Tubular Tangent with Distribution Underbuild Figure 1-4 Typical Double-Circuit 138-kV Pole Angle Figure 1-5 Typical Double-Circuit 138-kV Pole Deadend Figure 1-6 Typical Triple-Circuit Capable 138-kV H-Frame Tangent Figure 1-7 Photograph of a Typical Substation Figure 2-1 Study Area Location Figure 2-2 Location of the Study Area in Relation to the Physiographic regions of Texas Figure 2-3 Location of the Study Area in Relation to the Vegetational Areas of Texas Figure 2-4 Location of the Study Area in Relation to the Biotic Provinces of Texas Figure 2-5 Location of the Study Area in Relation to the Cultural Resource Planning Regions of Texas Figure 4-1 Preliminary Alternative Route Segments Figure 4-2 Addition of X5; Relabel of Southern Portion of F as Y5 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-3 Addition of A6; Realignment of L; Relabel of Southern Portion of S4 as C6 and the Southern Portions of J as Z5 and B6 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-4 Addition of L4, Substation Alternative 2-6, N4, M4, P4; Relabel of Southern Portion of K as S4 and C6, Southern Portion of S as R4, Western Portion of V as Q4, Eastern Portion of R as O4 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-5 Addition of V4, F6 and Substation Alternative 2-8, G6; Relabel of Southern Portions of N as H6 and U4 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-6 Addition of X4; Realignment of Y and Relabel of Southern Portion of W as T4; Realignment of I1 and Relabel of Northern Portion as W4; Extension of X to Meet W4 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-7 Addition of Y4, Z4, Substation Alternative 2-7, D6, C5; Relabel of Eastern Portion of K1 as B5; Relabel of Southern Portion of J1 as A5 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-8 Addition of U1a, V1a, D5, E5, H5, G5, F5; Realignment and Relabel of Southern Portion of R1 as L5; Relabel of Western Portion of M1 as F5; Extension of G1 to Meet F5 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-9 Realignment of B2; Extension of E2 and Reduction of F2 to Meet Shifted Substation Alternative 1-4 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-10 Realignment of K2, N3 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-11 Addition of W5, E6, Substation Alternative 1-8; Relabel of Southern Portion of B1 as U5, Southern Portion of T1 as V5 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-12 Addition of Substation Alternative 1-7, Relabel of Southern Portion of D2 as K4; Realignment of T2 Following the Open House Meeting HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE v

10 Figure 4-13 Realignment of O3 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-14 Realignment of N3 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-15 Addition of J5; Relabel of Central Portions of A1 as I5; Realignment and Relabel of Southern Portion of A1 as K5 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-16 Realignment of X2; Extension of B3 to Meet X2 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-17 Addition of D3a, R5; Realignment of C3, E3, D3, H3 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-18 Addition of N5; Relabel of Western Portion of V2 as M5 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-19 Addition of W2a, O5, Q5; Relabel of Western Portion of B3 as P5; Realignment of T2 and U2; Extension of U5 to Meet T2 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-20 Addition of A3a Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-21 Realignment of F3; Removal of P3, Q3; Combination of R3 and S3 with O3; Combination of T3 with F3 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-22 Addition of B4a; Realignment of U3, A4, D4; Combination of Z3 with B4; Relabel of Southern Portion of D4 as S5 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-23 Addition of F4a, T5; Realignment of F4 to Meet T5; Realignment of I4; Realignment of G4; Shortening of H4 to Meet T5 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-24 Realignment of H Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-25 Realignment of D1 Following the Open House Meeting Figure 4-26a Resulting Primary Alternative Routes Following the Open House Meetings Figure 4-26b Resulting Primary Alternative Routes Following the Open House Meetings Figure 4-27 Primary Alternative Routes (topo base)... Appendix D Figure 5-1 Habitable Structures and Other Land Use Features in the Vicinity of the Primary Alternative Routes (aerial base)... Appendix E HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE vi

11 TABLES: Table 2-1 Mapped Soil Associations within the Study Area Table 2-2 Potentially Occurring Ecological Systems within the Study Area Table 2-3 Representative Amphibian Species Occurring within the Study Area Table 2-4 Representative Reptilian Species Occurring within the Study Area Table 2-5 Representative Resident Bird Species Occurring within the Study Area Table 2-6 Representative Winter Bird Species Occurring within the Study Area Table 2-7 Representative Summer Bird Species Occurring within the Study Area Table 2-8 Representative Mammalian Species Occurring within the Study Area Table 2-9 Listed Threatened and Endangered Animal Species for Williamson County, TX Table 2-10 Population Trends Table 2-11 Labor Force and Employment Table 2-12 Occupations in Williamson County Table 2-13 Industries in the Williamson County Table 2-14 Recorded Cultural Resources within the Study Area Table 2-15 Recorded Archeological Sites within the Study Area Table 2-16 Cemeteries Recorded within the Study Area Table 2-17 Official Texas Historical Markers within the Study Area Table 2-18 Previous Cultural Resource Investigations within the Study Area Table 4-1 Segment Concerns/Comments Table 4-2 Primary Alternative Routes Table 4-3 Land Use and Environmental Criteria for Alternative Route Evaluation of the Leander-Round Rock Project Table 5-1 Land Use and Environmental Data for Primary Route Evaluation Table 5-2 Land Use and Environmental Data for Primary Route Evaluation (Primary Segments) Habitable Structures and Other Land Features in the Vicinity of Primary Alternative Routes (Appendix C) Table 5-3 Primary Alternative Route 1... C-1 Table 5-4 Primary Alternative Route 2... C-15 Table 5-5 Primary Alternative Route 3... C-26 Table 5-6 Primary Alternative Route 4... C-36 Table 5-7 Primary Alternative Route 5... C-49 Table 5-8 Primary Alternative Route 6... C-59 Table 5-9 Primary Alternative Route 7... C-73 Table 5-10 Primary Alternative Route 8... C-89 Table 5-11 Primary Alternative Route 9... C-97 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE vii

12 Table 5-12 Primary Alternative Route C-106 Table 5-13 Primary Alternative Route C-115 Table 5-14 Primary Alternative Route C-124 Table 5-15 Primary Alternative Route C-130 Table 5-16 Primary Alternative Route C-153 Table 5-17 Primary Alternative Route C-169 Table 5-18 Primary Alternative Route C-179 Table 5-19 Primary Alternative Route C-188 Table 5-20 Primary Alternative Route C-196 Table 5-21 Primary Alternative Route C-215 Table 5-22 Primary Alternative Route C-233 Table 5-23 Primary Alternative Route C-245 Table 5-24 Primary Alternative Route C-257 Table 5-25 Primary Alternative Route C-270 Table 5-26 Primary Alternative Route C-275 Table 5-27 Primary Alternative Route C-285 Table 5-28 Primary Alternative Route C-305 Table 5-29 Primary Alternative Route C-321 Table 5-30 Primary Alternative Route C-338 Table 5-31 Primary Alternative Route C-353 Table 5-32 Primary Alternative Route C-370 Table 5-33 Primary Alternative Route C-386 Table 5-34 Airport Facilities and Runway Locations Table 5-35 Parks and Recreation Areas Table 5-36 Electronic Communication Facilities Table 5-37 Archeological Sites Recorded within 1,000 feet of the Primary Alternative Routes HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE viii

13 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACSS/TW amsl B.P. BEG BGEPA BMPs CCN CLF cmbs CR CRA CWA EA ERCOT ESA ESSS FAA FCC FEMA FIRM FM FPPA GBRA GIS GLO HOA HPA HTC IH ISD kcmil km kv L LCRA TSC MBTA ME MUD MVA MW NCED NERC aluminum conductor, steel-supported/trapezoidal wire above mean sea level Before Present Bureau of Economic Geology Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Best Management Practices Certificate of Convenience and Necessity civilian labor force centimeters below the surface County Road Cultural Resources Assessment Clean Water Act Environmental Assessment Electric Reliability Council of Texas Endangered Species Act Ecologically Significant Stream Segment Federal Aviation Administration Federal Communication Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Farm-to-Market Road Farmland Protection Policy Act Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Geographic Information System Texas General Land Office Home Owners Association high probability areas Historic Texas Cemeteries Interstate Highway Independent School District thousand circular mils kilometer kilovolt lacustrine LCRA Transmission Services Corporation Migratory Bird Treaty Act Miscellaneous Easement Municipal Utility District Megavolt-amperes megawatt National Conservation Easement Database North American Electric Reliability Corporation HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE ix

14 NESC NHD NOI NPS NRA NRCS NRHP NWI OPGW OTHM PEM PFO POWER PSS PUB PUCT R RHCP RIP ROW RPG RRC SAL SCS SH SHPO SWPPP TARL TASA TCEQ THC THSA TNRIS TPWD TSS TWDB TxDOT TXNDD TxSDC US Hwy USACE USBOC USDA USEPA National Electrical Safety Code National Hydrology Dataset Notice of Intent National Park Service Natural Resources Assessment Natural Resources Conservation Service National Register of Historic Places National Wetland Inventory fiber optic ground wire Official Texas Historical Marker palustrine emergent forested POWER Engineers, Inc. shrub ponds Public Utility Commission of Texas riverine Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Record-Investigate-Protect right-of-way Regional Planning Group Railroad Commission of Texas State Archeological Landmarks Soil Conservation Service State Highway State Historic Preservation Office Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Texas Archeological Research Laboratory Texas Archeological Site Atlas Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Historical Commission Texas Historical Site Atlas Texas Natural Resource Information System Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Texas Speleological Society Texas Water Development Board Texas Department of Transportation Texas Natural Diversity Database Texas State Data Center United States Highway United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Bureau of the Census United States Department of Agriculture United States Environmental Protection Agency HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE x

15 USFWS USGS United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE xi

16 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE xii

17 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT POWER ENGINEERS, INC. LCRA Transmission Services Corporation (LCRA TSC) is proposing to build, own, and operate a new double-circuit capable 138-kilovolt (kv) transmission line in Williamson County (the Proposed Project). The Proposed Project will connect the existing Leander substation, two new proposed substations, and the existing Round Rock substation. LCRA TSC will initially install one 138-kV circuit on the new transmission line with the provision for a second circuit to be installed in the future. Figure 1-1 shows the location and extent of this project. After conducting an independent assessment, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) Board of Directors recommended the Proposed Project. LCRA TSC requires Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) approval to amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for the Proposed Project. LCRA TSC will own, operate, and maintain all transmission line facilities, including conductors, wires, structures, hardware, and easements. In addition, LCRA TSC will acquire the substation property, and will also own and operate facilities at the two new substations. 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED LCRA TSC and Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc. (PEC) have an established planning and operating relationship for the delivery of safe, reliable and cost-effective electric service. As its Transmission Operator, LCRA TSC assists PEC in ensuring the electric delivery requirements of its end-use customers. In its responsibility as the retail electric service provider, PEC has been providing retail electric service in a broad area of the Texas Hill Country supporting the growth of communities for over 75 years. The PEC retail electric service area is spread across 24 counties, including portions of Williamson County. Retail electric service to the area in south central Williamson County, generally between Austin and Leander along the US Highway 183 and west of Interstate Highway 35 transportation corridors, is served by PEC mostly via eight electric load-serving substations: Avery Ranch, Balcones, Kent Street, Buttercup, Whitestone, Blockhouse, Leander and Seward Junction substations. The total electric load served by PEC in this area exceeded 360 megawatts (MW) in Most of the capacity at these eight substations was installed in the last 20 years to be able to keep pace with the rapidly increasing demand for electricity in the area. The end-use customers include but are not limited to residential, small and large commercial and industrial, public offices, emergency response, urgent care facilities, hospitals, churches, schools, ranch and farm operations, communications towers and systems, and water treatment plants. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-1

18 Electric service from these eight substations to the area s end-use customers is presently limited by the existing remote transmission network to the west of the Proposed Project area. In order to construct new substations that will reliably provide retail electric service to customers in southern Williamson County, a new transmission line must be constructed. The purpose and need for the Proposed Project is driven by two key factors for adequately and reliably serving local area electric load requirements. These factors are summarized as follows: 1. The existing and forecasted electric demand has been increasing at a steady pace in the Williamson County area due to increased demand from existing customers as well as increased numbers of new customers in the area. This area is one of the most rapidly growing areas in Texas and includes the areas in and around the cities of Leander, Cedar Park, Austin, and Round Rock as well as unincorporated areas of Williamson County. 2. The Proposed Project supports distribution-level electric service reliability and operational requirements, including maintaining electric service during emergency restoration events. The local distribution system reliability and operational needs cannot be addressed with or by only expanding existing distribution facilities in the area. In light of these two factors, PEC, LCRA TSC, and ERCOT, the stakeholders tasked with the obligatory accountability to serve electric needs in a reliable and safe manner, developed the Proposed Project as the most effective solution of 13 alternatives considered. One substation is required near the general area where Ronald Reagan Boulevard and FM 1431 intersect and the other substation is required near the general area of the intersection of Ronald Reagan Boulevard and East Crystal Falls Parkway. The primary objective of the Proposed Project is to provide a transmission connection to these two new load-serving substations from the existing high voltage electric grid. In addition to cost-effectively meeting its primary objective, the Proposed Project provides secondary benefits in that it strengthens the transmission system service to the broader area and increases transmission service reliability to both the existing Leander and Round Rock substations. Continuing to serve the area's electric load without the Proposed Project will result in degradation of electric service reliability to a large number of end-use customers and could significantly limit the continued healthy economic development of the broader area. Furthermore, PEC s ability to meet its obligations for providing cost-effective electric service and to respond to emergencies will be severely limited without the Proposed Project. Lastly, without the Proposed Project, other large transmission line projects will be required to mitigate future transmission issues that impact an even broader area. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-2

19 Insert Figure 1-1 Project Area Location Map 11 X 17 with a PDF document. Page 3 FRONT HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-3

20 Insert Figure 1-1 Project Area Location Map 11 X 17 with a PDF document. Page 4 Back HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-4

21 1.3 AGENCY ACTIONS POWER ENGINEERS, INC. This environmental assessment (EA) in support of LCRA TSC s application to amend its CCN from the PUCT, is intended to provide information on certain environmental and land use factors contained in Section (c)(4) of the Texas Utilities Code and the PUCT s Substantive Rule (b)(3)(B). This EA may also be used in support of any other local, state, or federal permitting requirements, if necessary. Where a proposed route for the project crosses or requires access from a state-maintained road or highway, LCRA TSC will obtain a permit from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) prior to construction if that route is ultimately approved by the PUCT. Where a proposed route for the project is parallel to TxDOT roads, LCRA TSC intends to place transmission line structures on adjacent private property and not within the road right of way (ROW). LCRA TSC does not propose to place any structures of the Proposed Project within any TxDOT ROW. LCRA TSC will coordinate with Williamson County engineers regarding crossing of county roads as appropriate. For any portion of the Proposed Project located in the City of Leander, City of Cedar Park, or City of Round Rock, LCRA TSC will obtain necessary permits from the cities prior to construction and will coordinate with the cities during the design phase of the project. LCRA TSC does not generally propose to place any structures of the transmission line within any county or city roadway ROW. However, some segments of the Proposed Project along Arterial H, Hairy Man Road, Sam Bass, and Ronald Reagan Boulevard may require a few structures to be located within the road ROW. For these areas, LCRA TSC will coordinate with the appropriate roadway controlling entity (i.e. the city or county) regarding the location of the structures. Because more than one acre will be disturbed during construction of the Proposed Project, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared; and because more than five acres will be disturbed, a Notice of Intent (NOI) will be submitted by LCRA TSC to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The controls specified in the SWPPP will be monitored in the field. The TCEQ s Edwards Aquifer rules (Title 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 213) apply to construction and other ground-disturbing activities on the recharge, transition, or contributing zone as mapped by TCEQ. When constructing on the Edwards Aquifer, preparation of an Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan (EAPP), including a water pollution abatement plan (WPAP), may be required. The installation of electrical transmission lines is a regulated activity that is exempt from the EAPP HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-5

22 requirements. However, proposed substations on the recharge, transition, or contributing zone are subject to the rules. Upon approval of LCRA TSC s CCN application and prior to construction, a detailed Natural Resources Assessment (NRA) and Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) will be performed on the approved route. Depending upon the results of these assessments, permits or regulatory approvals may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), TCEQ, or Williamson County. If LCRA TSC encounters previously unassessed artifacts, cultural resources or environmental features during project construction, LCRA TSC will stop construction in the immediate vicinity of the site. LCRA TSC will notify and consult with the appropriate administering authority and LCRA TSC design staff to develop a process for the site before construction continues. Similarly, as LCRA TSC identifies other obstacles and engineering constraints along the approved route, LCRA TSC will adjust alignments, adjust structure locations/heights, and/or take other actions consistent with a Final Order approving the Proposed Project. After all other alignments and structure locations/heights are adjusted and set based on the permitting and notices described previously, LCRA TSC will make a final determination of the need for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notification, based on structure locations and structure designs. Based on potential impacts within the purview of the FAA, LCRA TSC may use structures of lower-than-typical heights in some areas and add marking and/or lighting to certain structures. Appropriate measures will be taken during engineering design to ensure that special provisions of the PUCT s Final Order regarding environmental and ROW concerns are addressed. If necessary, these measures will be added to construction documents, specifications, or other instructions. Following completion of the design, a preconstruction meeting will be held, which will include a review of these regulatory provisions. A physical inspection of the project will be performed following project completion to ensure all appropriate measures have been taken during construction. LCRA TSC will report the status of the transmission line project to the PUCT on LCRA TSC s Monthly Construction Progress Report, beginning with the first report following the filing of the CCN application, and in each subsequent monthly progress report until construction is completed and actual project costs have been reported. As required by the PUCT, LCRA TSC will submit location and attribute data for the approved route after it is constructed. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-6

23 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Transmission Line Design Considerations The Proposed Project will be operated as a 138-kV transmission line with bundled 795 thousand circular mils (kcmil) aluminum conductor, steel-reinforced (ACSR) Drake with two conductors per phase and one fiber optic ground wire (OPGW). The transmission line will be installed on new structures and within new easements. LCRA TSC will initially install one 138-kV circuit on the new transmission line with the provision for a second circuit to be installed in the future. The Proposed Project will be rated for operation at 1,866 Amperes, yielding a nominal 446-Megavoltamperes (MVA) capacity. The configurations of the conductor and shield wires will provide adequate clearance for operation at 138-kV, considering icing and wind conditions. The Proposed Project will be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the specifications set forth in the current edition of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and will comply with all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations. The results of the Natural/Cultural Resource Assessments will be considered when designing and placing new structures Typical Transmission Line Structures and Easements For most segments of the proposed routing, LCRA TSC proposes to use 138-kV double-circuit capable pole structures for typical tangent, angle and deadend structures. The geometries of the proposed typical tangent, angle and deadend structures are shown on Figures 1-4 through 1-8. All structure geometries are illustrative. In some areas, such as transmission line crossings and highway crossings, shorter than typical, taller than typical, or alternative structure types may be utilized. Actual structure types may differ slightly based on newer or different designs available at the time of construction. The new double-circuit capable 138-kV transmission facilities will typically be constructed on new ROW within easements ranging from approximately 60 to 100 feet in width, and using typical spans that range from approximately 500 to 1,000 feet. In some areas, spans could be more or less than the typical spans, depending upon terrain and other engineering constraints. Easement widths could also vary to address similar concerns. Access easements and/or temporary construction easements may be needed in some areas. Some route segments, including segments I3, G3, E3, C3, X2, and a portion of A1, would require rebuilding an existing LCRA TSC electric transmission line (LCRA TSC T-378 Round Rock to Chief HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-7

24 Brady and T-355 Chief Brady to Georgetown, depending upon the specific route segment) primarily within an existing easement. Utilizing an existing transmission line ROW requires that the structures be capable of holding three electric circuits, the existing circuit and the two new circuits for this project. Therefore, these segments will require the use of triple-circuit capable H-frame structures. The geometry of a typical tangent triple-circuit H-frame structure is shown on Figure 1-8. LCRA TSC s typical practice is to construct transmission lines in their own easements adjacent to existing distribution lines. However, portions of some route segments, including segments B2, D1, E4, F5, N3, and Y2, are generally located along existing distribution alignments and may require coordination with the distribution circuit owner for over-building. Over-building means that both the transmission line and the distribution line will be located on shared poles along the existing distribution alignment. This would require the replacement of the existing distribution poles with new, bigger poles. LCRA TSC would generally only over-build an existing distribution line if there is not adequate space between the existing distribution line and adjacent habitable structures to safely and reliably construct, operate, and maintain the transmission line. The geometry of a typical tangent pole with distribution underbuild is shown on Figure 1-5. LCRA TSC has coordinated with PEC and Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (Oncor) regarding potentially overbuilding their existing distribution facilities along the referenced segments. Both utilities have indicated that overbuilding their distribution facilities in these locations is acceptable Substations The Proposed Project will connect two new 138-kV load-serving substations to the existing 138-kV electric transmission grid. One of the connections of the new line to the existing grid will be to the Leander Substation and the other connection will be to the Round Rock Substation. For each of the two new substations, an approximately 5-7 acre site will be required. LCRA TSC will acquire the property to install the two new substations. After the substation property is prepared, the following major electric facilities will be located inside each of these new substations: substation A-frame structures transmission line circuit breakers transmission voltage level (138-kV) electric bus transformer(s) distribution voltage level (24.9-kV) electric bus HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-8

25 distribution line circuit breakers underground distribution line exists switches substation control house The 138-kV line termination facilities (switches and circuit breakers) will be sized to accommodate the capacity of the new transmission line. The transformers installed as part of the Proposed Project will have a capacity rating of 47 MVA and will be designed to minimize noise per applicable standards. The new substations will be fenced around the perimeter and LED-lighted to ensure adherence with security and safety measures and requirements. An access road will be built between the nearest existing road and the substation. Figure 1-8 is a photograph of a typical electric substation. During maintenance periods, the normal working hours are 8 AM to 5 PM. The connection of the new transmission line to the existing Leander Substation requires certain modifications at that substation. PEC will expand the 138-kV electric bus. For LCRA TSC s portion of work at the Leander Substation, the following major facilities will be added: substation A-frame structures transmission line circuit breakers switches The connection of the new transmission line to the existing Round Rock Substation requires certain modifications at that substation. Oncor will provide the required facilities at that substation. These facilities include circuit breaker(s) and related line termination facilities. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-9

26 Source: LCRA 2016 Figure 1-2 TEXAS k Project Location Typical Double-Circuit 138-kV Pole Tangent Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project PAGE 1-10

27 Source: LCRA 2016 Figure 1-3 TEXAS k Project Location Typical Double-Circuit 138-kV Pole Tangent with Distribution Underbuild Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project PAGE 1-11

28 Source: LCRA 2016 Figure 1-4 TEXAS k Project Location Typical Double-Circuit 138-kV Pole Angle Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project PAGE 1-12

29 Source: LCRA 2016 Figure 1-5 TEXAS k Project Location Typical Double-Circuit 138-kV Pole Deadend Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project PAGE 1-13

30 Source: LCRA 2016 Figure 1-6 TEXAS k Project Location Typical Triple-Circuit Capable 138-kV H-Frame Tangent Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project PAGE 1-14

31 Figure 1-7 Photograph of a Typical Substation HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-15

32 1.5 TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Construction of the Proposed Project will require removal of vegetation, excavating for installation of foundations, structure assembly and erection, conductor and shield wire installation, and cleanup when construction is complete. After alignments and structure locations/heights are set, construction specifications will be prepared and construction will be conducted with attention to the conservation of natural and cultural resources. The following criteria will help to attain this goal: 1. Efforts will be made to avoid oil spills and other types of pollution, particularly while performing work in the vicinity of streams, ponds, and other water bodies. 2. Water used for construction purposes will not typically be taken from streams or other bodies of water. Should water from streams be necessary, its use will be limited to volumes that will not cause harm to the ecology or aesthetics of the area. 3. Precautions will be taken to prevent the possibility of accidentally starting range fires, in compliance with local fire laws and applicable regulations. 4. Tension stringing of conductors will be employed where possible to reduce the amount of vegetation removal. Helicopters may be considered for use in some areas, potentially including areas where clearing may be difficult or particularly impactful to the environment. 5. Precautions will be taken to prevent the spread of oak wilt. ROW preparation will adhere to LCRA s Corporate Oak Wilt Policy (see Appendix F). 6. When practical, in areas of known endangered or threatened species habitat and in consultation with the USFWS, construction will be performed during seasons of low occurrence or during the non-breeding season (species dependent). 7. The Proposed Project will comply with the TCEQ construction general permit for storm water discharges. 8. If any previously unassessed archaeological materials are uncovered during construction, construction will cease in the immediate area of the discovery, and LCRA TSC will take appropriate actions consistent with those previously described in Section ROW preparation will be performed in accordance with the provisions discussed below, in order to diminish soil disturbance during construction. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-16

33 1.5.1 Right-of-Way Preparation POWER ENGINEERS, INC. Trees and brush in the ROW are removed where necessary to ensure safe operation of and access to the line. Existing and new ROW will be used for access during construction operations. Ingress and egress through private property may be required in limited circumstances to reduce construction impacts. In the event ingress and egress through private property is necessary, existing private roads will be used where practical. In some cases, culverts may be used to cross creeks and tributaries. Where culverts are not used, creek crossings may consist of rock or cobble placed on the stream bottom. The following factors, thoughtfully implemented and applicable to the Proposed Project, will minimize the potential adverse effects of the Proposed Project on the natural environment: 1. Preparation of the ROW for construction of the transmission line facilities will take into account soil stability, the prevention of silt deposition in water courses, and practical measures for the protection of natural vegetation and protection of adjacent resources, such as natural habitat for wildlife. 2. A flail mower may be used instead of bulldozers with dirt blades, where such use will preserve the cover crop of grass, low-growing brush, and similar vegetation. 3. Vegetation will typically be removed in a straight path. 4. Removal of vegetation and grading of construction areas, such as storage areas or setup sites, will be performed in a manner that will minimize erosion and conform to the natural topography. 5. Vegetation removal will be performed in accordance with construction plans, which will be developed in accordance with natural and cultural resource regulations applicable to the area of construction and in a manner that will diminish scarring of the landscape or silting of streams, while ensuring that the transmission line facilities can be constructed, operated, and maintained safely and in accordance with the construction codes referenced above. 6. Vegetation removal will be performed in a manner that diminishes the amount of flora and fauna disturbed during construction of the transmission line, except to the extent necessary to establish appropriate clearance for the transmission line. 7. Vegetation removal and construction activities, including temporary or permanent access roads in the Waters of the United States or in the vicinity of streambeds, will be performed in a manner to minimize damage to the natural condition of the area and in accordance with USACE requirements. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-17

34 8. Vegetation removal will not be performed until a SWPPP has been prepared and a NOI has been submitted to the TCEQ for the Proposed Project. 9. Erosion control devices will be constructed where necessary to prevent soil erosion in the ROW, in accordance with the SWPPP. Erosion control devices will be maintained and inspections conducted until the site is sufficiently re-vegetated, as required by the SWPPP. 10. Roads will be provided with erosion-control measures, which may include side drainage ditches or culverts in accordance with the SWPPP. 11. Roads will be stabilized if constructed on steep slopes. Where feasible, service and access roads will be constructed jointly. 12. In or near areas where ROWs enter dense vegetation and cross major highways or rivers of high scenic value, a screen of natural vegetation may be left in the ROW while still allowing for access to the ROW Structure Assembly and Erection Survey crews will stake or otherwise mark structure locations. Soil borings and soils testing will provide the parameters for foundation designs for new structures. Construction crews will install structures by excavating circular holes and placing in them a reinforced, concrete foundation or a direct-embed pole. Where direct-embedded poles are used, crews will install them by excavating oversized holes, lifting and setting the structure, and backfilling with native soils, select fill, or concrete, depending on soil conditions at the site. Where structures with foundations are used, after foundations have cured sufficiently, crews will set structures. Following structure erection, crews will install the conductor and shield wire suspension assemblies. Conductor suspension assemblies may include porcelain and/or polymer insulators. Structure grounds will be installed using external ground rods. In some areas, avian-perching deterrents will be installed above suspension assemblies. Although vehicular traffic is a very large part of this operation, construction crews will take care to limit damage to the ROW by minimizing the number of pathways traveled Conductor and Shield Wire Installation Conductor, also referred to as wire, and shield wires (for lightning protection) will be installed via a tensioning system. Tensioning systems typically use ropes threaded through stringing blocks or dollies for each conductor and shield wire. Conductor and shield wires will be pulled by the ropes and held tight by a tensioner to keep the wires from coming in contact with the ground and other objects that could damage HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-18

35 the wire. In addition, guard structures (temporary wood-pole structures) will be installed where the transmission line crosses overhead electric power lines, overhead telephone lines, roadways, or other areas requiring an additional margin of safety during wire installation. After the wire is tensioned to the required sag, the wire will be taken out of the blocks and placed in the suspension and dead-end clamps for permanent attachment Cleanup The cleanup operation involves stabilizing disturbed areas, removal of debris, and the restoration of items damaged by construction of the Proposed Project. The following criteria will guide the cleanup of construction debris and restoration of the area s natural setting. Further requirements may be imposed by land management agencies. 1. Construction equipment, supplies, and LCRA TSC or contractor property will be dismantled and removed from the ROW when construction is complete. 2. Construction waste, with the possible exception of cleared vegetation, will be removed prior to completion of the Proposed Project. 3. If cleared vegetation is mulched, it may be spread out over the ROW, given to the landowner or a nursery as a product for beneficial use, or picked up and taken to a landfill. 4. Burning is not typically conducted, but may be used as a means of disposal, if no practical alternative exists. Any material to be burned will be piled in a manner and in locations that will cause the least fire risk. Care will be taken to prevent fire or heat damage to trees, shrubs, and structures adjacent to the ROW and substation. Burning will conform to local fire and air quality regulations. 5. Soil that has been excavated during construction and not used will be evenly backfilled onto a cleared area, spread to conform to the terrain and the adjacent land, or removed from the site. 6. Replacement of soil adjacent to water crossings for access roads will be at slopes less than the normal angle of repose for the soil type involved. 7. If temporary roads are used, they will be removed and the original slopes restored and revegetated as required by the SWPPP. 8. If natural re-vegetation will not provide ground cover in a reasonable length of time, seeding, sprigging or hydro-seeding of restored areas may be used to encourage growth of grasses and other vegetation that is ecologically desirable. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-19

36 9. Where site factors make it unusually difficult to establish a protective vegetative cover, other restoration procedures may be advisable to prevent erosion, such as the use of gravel, rocks, or concrete. 10. LCRA TSC will return each affected landowner s property to its original contours and grades unless otherwise agreed to by the landowners representatives. However, LCRA TSC will not restore a landowner s property to its original contours and grades if doing so will affect the safety or stability of the project s structures or the safe operation and maintenance of the line. 1.6 TRANSMISSION LINE MAINTENANCE Periodic inspection of the ROW, structures, and line will be performed by the LCRA TSC Line Operations Department in order to provide for the safe and reliable operation of the transmission line. The major maintenance item will be the necessary removal of trees and other vegetation that have the potential to interfere with the safe and reliable operation of the transmission line. Preservation of the environmental, natural, and cultural resource conservation factors, designed and built into transmission system siting, require a thoughtful, comprehensive program for maintaining the facilities. The following factors will be incorporated into LCRA TSC s maintenance program for this project. 1. Native vegetation, particularly that of value to fish and wildlife, that has been preserved during the construction process and that does not impede access nor have the potential to grow close enough to the transmission line to pose a hazard to the safe operation and maintenance of the transmission line, will be allowed to grow in selected parts of the ROW. 2. Once a cover of vegetation has been established, it will be properly maintained to ensure public safety and a reliable, functioning transmission system. 3. Access roads and service roads, where practical, will be maintained with native grass cover. Where grading is necessary, access and service roads will be graded to the proper slope in order to prevent or diminish soil erosion. 4. If used, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved herbicides will be carefully selected and carefully applied in a manner that will diminish effects on desirable indigenous plant life, and selective application will be used whenever appropriate. To preserve the natural environment, it is essential that herbicides be applied in a manner fully consistent with the protection of the entire environment, particularly the health of humans and wildlife. 5. Maintenance inspection intervals will be established by LCRA TSC and routine maintenance will be conducted, when possible, while access roads are firm or dry. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-20

37 6. Aerial and ground maintenance inspection activities of the transmission line facility will include observation of soil erosion problems, fallen timber, and conditions of the vegetation that require attention. As an erosion-control measure, native shrubs, forbs, or grasses may be planted. 7. Transmission line ROW can be used for appropriate types of multiple-use concepts, such as trails suitable for hiking, biking, bird watching, farming, ranching and livestock grazing, wildlife production, and recreational or commercial hunting operations, as long as the activity does not impact public safety or inhibit safe operation and maintenance of the electrical system. 1.7 SUBSTATION SITE CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Construction of the Proposed Project includes the installation of two new electric load-serving substations. Each substation will require a graded site pad and an access road with construction consisting of vegetation removal, cut and fill of existing soils, and the addition of select fill and compacted crushed limestone. Following site preparation a perimeter fence, foundations, ground grid, electrical equipment, support structures, and a control building will be installed. After all facilities are installed, a final surface layer of gravel will be added, and cleanup will occur when construction is complete. After the site locations are approved as part of the PUCT s approved routing for the Proposed Project, construction documents will be prepared and construction will be conducted with attention to the conservation of natural and cultural resources. The following criteria will help to attain this goal: 1. Efforts will be made to avoid oil spills and other types of pollution, particularly while performing work in the vicinity of streams, ponds, and other water bodies. 2. Water used for construction purposes will not typically be taken from streams or other bodies of water. Should water from streams be necessary, its use will be limited to volumes that will not cause harm to the ecology or aesthetics of the area. 3. Precautions will be taken to prevent the possibility of accidentally starting range fires, in compliance with local fire laws and applicable regulations. 4. Precautions will be taken to prevent the spread of oak wilt. Site clearing and preparation will adhere to LCRA s Corporate Oak Wilt Policy (see Appendix F). 5. When practical, in areas of known endangered or threatened species habitat, construction will be performed during seasons of low occurrence or during the non-breeding season (species dependent). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-21

38 6. The Proposed Project will comply with the TCEQ construction general permit for storm water discharges. 7. If any previously unassessed archaeological materials are uncovered during construction, activities will cease in the immediate area of the discovery, and LCRA TSC will take appropriate actions consistent with those previously described in Section Site preparation will be performed in accordance with the provisions discussed below, in order to diminish soil disturbance during construction Substation Site Preparation Trees and brush on the substation site are removed where necessary to ensure safe operation of and access to the substation. 1. Preparation of the site for construction of the substation will take into account soil stability, the prevention of silt deposition in water courses and aquifers, and practical measures for the protection of natural vegetation and protection of adjacent resources, such as natural habitat for wildlife. 2. Removal of vegetation and grading of construction areas, such as storage areas or setup sites, will be performed in a manner that will minimize erosion and conform to the natural topography. 3. Vegetation removal will be performed in accordance with construction plans, while ensuring that the substation facilities can be constructed, operated, and maintained safely and in accordance with the construction codes referenced above. 4. Vegetation removal and construction activities, including temporary or permanent access roads in the Waters of the United States or in the vicinity of streambeds, will be performed in a manner to minimize damage to the natural condition of the area and in accordance with USACE requirements. 5. Vegetation removal will not be performed until a SWPPP has been prepared and a NOI has been submitted to the TCEQ for the Proposed Project. 6. Erosion control devices will be constructed where necessary to prevent soil erosion in accordance with the SWPPP. Erosion control devices will be maintained and inspections conducted until the site is sufficiently re-vegetated, as required by the SWPPP. 7. Permanent water quality facilities will be designed, permitted and constructed to protect sensitive underground aquifer resources where required. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-22

39 8. Substation access roads will be provided with erosion-control measures, which may include side drainage ditches or culverts in accordance with the SWPPP. 9. Substation access roads will be stabilized if constructed on steep slopes. Where feasible, service and access roads will be constructed jointly Substation Construction Survey crews will stake or otherwise mark the substation property boundaries as well as the locations for site preparation and fencing. Construction crews will perform site preparation and grade the substation. A perimeter fence will be constructed. Structure and equipment foundations, ground grid, and below ground conduits will be installed. A-frame structures, equipment stands, bus supports, and a control building will be erected. Substation breakers, switches, bus, transformers, and other equipment will be installed. A final layer of gravel will be placed over the fenced area. Equipment commissioning activities will be performed prior to the substation going into service Cleanup The cleanup operation involves stabilizing disturbed areas and removal of debris. The following criteria will guide the cleanup of construction debris. 1. Construction equipment, supplies, and LCRA TSC or contractor property will be dismantled and removed from the project site when construction is complete. 2. Construction waste will be removed prior to completion of the Proposed Project. 4. If cleared vegetation is mulched, it may be given to the landowner or a nursery as a product for beneficial use, or picked up and taken to a landfill. 4. Soil that has been excavated during construction and not used will be evenly backfilled onto a cleared area, spread to conform to the terrain and the adjacent land, or removed from the site. 5. Replacement of soil adjacent to water crossings for access roads will be at slopes less than the normal angle of repose for the soil type involved. 6. If temporary roads are used, they will be removed and the original slopes restored and revegetated as required by the SWPPP. 7. Where site factors make it unusually difficult to establish a protective vegetative cover, other restoration procedures may be advisable to prevent erosion, such as the use of gravel, rocks, or concrete. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-23

40 1.8 SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE POWER ENGINEERS, INC. Periodic inspection of the substations will be performed by LCRA TSC Operations and Maintenance personnel in order to provide for the safe and reliable operation of the substations. Maintenance will include any necessary removal of vegetation that has the potential to interfere with the safe and reliable operation of the substations. The following factors will be incorporated into LCRA TSC s maintenance program for this project. 1. Substation access roads will be constructed using crushed gravel, asphalt, or concrete as determined by site and regulatory requirements. Gravel roads will employ anti-dusting agents as required. Where grading is necessary, access and service roads will be graded to the proper slope in order to prevent or diminish soil erosion. 2. If used, USEPA approved herbicides will be carefully selected and carefully applied in a manner that will diminish effects on desirable indigenous plant life, and selective application will be used whenever appropriate. To preserve the natural environment, it is essential that herbicides be applied in a manner fully consistent with the protection of the entire environment, particularly the health of humans and wildlife. 3. Maintenance inspection intervals will be established by LCRA TSC. 4. Maintenance inspection activities of the substation facility will include observation of soil erosion problems, and conditions of the vegetation that require attention. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 1-24

41 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The study approach utilized by POWER for this EA included the characterization and identification of environmental constraints and potential routing opportunities for the project. To accomplish this task, once the project endpoints were provided and the study area boundaries established, a base map was developed and several methods were then incorporated to collect pertinent environmental and land use data. Methods utilized for the development and identification for preliminary and proposed alternative routes are provided in Section 4.0. The two endpoints for this project are the existing Leander substation and the existing Round Rock substation. The project will extend through a proposed new substation in the vicinity of the Ronald Reagan Boulevard and Crystal Falls Parkway intersection (Substation 2) and continue through a proposed new substation in the vicinity of the Ronald Reagan Boulevard and Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 1431 intersection (Substation 1). The study area boundaries were defined to include feasible, geographically diverse alternatives for the location of a new 138-kV transmission line and two new substations. In addition to the technical requirements associated with the location of the project, major physiographic features, jurisdictional boundaries, sensitive resources, land uses, and existing linear corridors (roadways and utilities) helped to define the study area boundaries (Figure 2-1). The study area covers approximately 52 square miles in Williamson County. After delineation of the study area, a project base map was prepared and used to display resource data for the project area. Resource data categories and factors that were determined appropriate for evaluation based on the statutory requirements and PUCT rules and precedent were selected and mapped for interpretation and analysis. The base map provides a broad overview of various resource locations indicating routing constraints and areas of potential routing opportunities. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-1

42 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-2

43 Insert Figure 2-1 Study Area in PDF format. FRONT HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-3

44 Insert Figure 2-1 Study Area in PDF format. BACK HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-4

45 Data displayed on the base map includes but is not limited to: Major land jurisdictions and uses Major roads (including county roads [CR], FM roads, state highways [SH], and Interstate Highways (IH)) Existing transmission line and pipeline corridors Parks and recreation areas Major political subdivision boundaries Rivers, streams, and ponds Several methods were used to collect and review environmental and land use data including incorporation of readily available Geographic Information System (GIS) coverage with associated metadata, review of maps and published literature, review of files and records from numerous federal, state and local regulatory agencies, and reconnaissance surveys of the study area. Inventory data for each resource area were collected and mapped within the study area using GIS programs and software. Maps and/or data layers reviewed include, but were not limited to, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic maps, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, TxDOT county highway maps, Williamson county appraisal district land parcel boundary data layers (Williamson County Appraisal District 2015, 2016), and recent aerial imagery flown on September 7 and 12, 2015 (Photo Science 2015). Various federal, state, and local agencies and officials that may have potential concerns and/or regulatory permitting requirements for the proposed project were contacted. A list of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies was developed to receive a consultation letter regarding the proposed project. The purpose of the letter was to inform the various agencies of the proposed project and to provide them with an opportunity to disseminate information regarding resources and potential issues within the study area. Copies of correspondence with local/county departments and the various federal, state, and local regulatory agencies are included in Appendix A. Ground reconnaissance surveys of the study area (limited to public viewpoints) were conducted by POWER personnel to confirm the findings of data collection activities, to identify changes in land use occurring after the date of the available aerial photography, and to identify potential unknown constraints HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-5

46 that may not have been previously noted in the data. Ground reconnaissance surveys of the study area were conducted on the following dates: July 24, 2015 October 13-14, 2015 February 26, 2016 March 1-2, 2016 The following sections summarize the data collection methods and describe the environmental setting for each resource within the study area. 2.1 Physiography As shown in Figure 2-2, the study area is primarily located with the Edwards Plateau Physiographic Province (Bureau of Economic Geology [BEG] 1996). This area of the Edwards Plateau is characterized by flat upper surfaces, interspersed by drainages that open up into larger draws or box canyons. Bedrock types typically include cretaceous limestone and dolomite. Elevations in the Edwards Plateau range between 3,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl) within the western and northern portions, to 450 feet amsl as you move towards the Gulf coast. Elevations in the study area range between approximately 720 feet amsl along the lower portions of Brushy Creek to approximately 1,050 feet on the hilltops in the northern portion of the study area (BEG 1996). 2.2 Geology The BEG (1981) geologic atlas map (Austin Sheet) was reviewed for geologic formations that occur within the study area. Geologic formations occurring within in the study area primarily include the Cretaceous-aged Fredericksburg Group, with portions of Quaternary-aged alluvium along streams and creeks. Quaternary aged rock groups within the study area include alluvium. Alluvium deposits contain clay, silt, sand, gravel and organic matter. The alluvium deposits are more recent and may be located above the floodplain in areas with frequent flooding along the rivers, creeks, and streams (USGS 2014). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-6

47 STUDY AREA ² Miles Source: Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, 1996 Legend Physiographic Region Boundary 1 High Plains 2 North-Central Plains 3 Grand Prairie 4 Blackland Prairies 5 Interior Coastal Plains 6 Gulf Coastal Prairies 7 Edwards Plateau 8 Central Texas Uplift 9 Trans-Pecos Basin and Range County Boundary Figure 2-2 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA IN RELATION TO THE PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF TEXAS Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project

48 Cretaceous aged formations include the Fredericksburg Group (USGS 2014). This formation is generally comprised of limestone and dolomite with chert in thin layers or nodules and locally gypsiferous marl. This formation may be approximately 60 to 350 feet thick (USGS 2014). Geological Significant Features Several potential significant features affecting construction and operation of the transmission line were reviewed within the study area. Potentially hazardous areas reviewed include karst areas with known cave locations, fault lines, historical coal/uranium mining locations and subsurface contamination. Cave and karst data were collected from a variety of sources including the Texas Speleological Survey ([TSS] 1994, 2007), USFWS (2014), Texas Natural Diversity Database ([TXNDD] 2015, 2016), and Williamson County and local Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) (Personal Communication, February 2016, March 2016). POWER also contracted Cambrian Environmental to conduct an impacts analysis for federally listed salamander and karst invertebrate species (Cambrian Environmental 2016). These data sources identified several caves and karst features within the study area and additional unknown karst features and formations may occur within this geologic region. The study area lies within the Balcones Fault Zone Karst Region of Texas (TSS 2007) and within Karst Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4 (USFWS 2014). TSS (1994) data indicates Inner Space Cavern is located along the northeast boundary of the study area. Inner Space Cavern is a large privately-owned cave, approximately 15,000 feet in length, in which portions are open for public tours. It is also known to contain two endangered invertebrates: the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) and Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus). This cave was discovered in 1963 when test boreholes were drilled before construction of Interstate Highway 35 (I-35) (TSS 1994). Texas Natural Diversity Database ([TXNDD] 2015, 2016) data indicates two small invertebrate caves within the eastern portions of the study area. All these features were mapped using GIS and taken into consideration during the routing process. Review of the USGS data and BEG geologic atlas maps indicates one seismic fault located within the study area. This fault runs in an approximate southwest/northeast direction under the western portion of the study area, intersecting Brushy Creek. It runs approximately from the City of Cedar Park, Texas to near FM 176, with the up-thrown side facing northwest (BEG 1981). No Quaternary faults were identified within the study area (USGS 2015a). Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) data were reviewed and no historical or current coal/uranium mining activities are/were within the study area (RRC 2015a, 2015b). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-8

49 Subsurface contamination (soils or groundwater) from previous commercial activities or dumps/landfills may require additional considerations during routing and/or may create a potential hazard during construction activities. Review of USEPA Superfund/National Priority List Sites (USEPA 2014) and TCEQ State Superfund Sites (TCEQ 2015) did not indicate any federal or state listed sites within the study area. No active or historical landfills were identified within the study area (TCEQ 2007). 2.3 Soils Soil Associations The published Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys for Williamson County (Soil Conservation Service [SCS] 1983) were used to identify and characterize the soil associations that encompass the study area. A soil association is a group of soils geographically associated in a characteristic repeating pattern and defined as a single unit (NRCS 2015). Soil associations occurring within the study area are listed in Table 2-1, which summarizes each soil association identified within the study area and indicates if any mapped units of the soil series within the association are considered prime farmlands and/or hydric soils (NRCS 2015). TABLE 2-1 MAPPED SOIL ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA SOIL ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTION SOIL SERIES PERCENT OF ASSOCIATION HYDRIC SOIL PRIME FARMLAND SOIL Williamson County (SCS 1983) Denton - Eckrant - Doss Eckrant - Georgetown Source: SCS 1983; NRCS Moderately deep, shallow, and very shallow, calcareous, clayey, cobbly, and stony soils formed in indurated fractured limestone or limy earths; on uplands Very shallow to moderately deep, calcareous and noncalcareous, stony, cobbly, and loamy soil formed in indurated fractured limestone; on uplands Denton 21 No Yes Eckrant 20 No No Doss 19 No No Other Eckrant 58 No No Georgetown 24 No Yes Other Denton - Eckrant Doss soils are found primarily in the western portion of the study area, while Eckrant Georgetown soils are found in the eastern portion. Both of these associations typically occur on HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-9

50 uplands. Eckrant soils are generally found on steep hills and side slopes. Doss and Georgetown soils are typically found on broad ridges and side slopes. Denton soils typically occur in valleys (SCS 1983) Prime Farmland Soils United States Code (c)(1)(A) defines prime farmland soils as those soils that have the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. They have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. Additional potential prime farmlands are those soils that meet most of the requirements of prime farmland but fail because they lack the installation of water management facilities, or they lack sufficient natural moisture. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would consider these soils as prime farmland if such practices were installed. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2015) there is multiple soil series designated as prime farmland within the study area. The soil associations are listed in Table 2-1. The NRCS responded to POWER s solicitation for information in a letter dated March 18, 2015 (Appendix A). The NRCS concluded that prime farmland areas are located within the study area and that a determination of potential environmental effects cannot be completed without an exact location of the site. Typically the construction of a new transmission line is not considered a conversion of Prime and Important Farmlands because the area within the ROW between the transmission line structures can still be used for agricultural purposes after construction. As a result, no long-term adverse impacts to prime farmland soils are anticipated and without a federal nexus the project would be exempt from the regulations listed under Part Farmland Protection Policy Act Manual; Subpart B; ,B (8) Hydric Soils The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils defines hydric soils as soils that were formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. These soils, under natural conditions, are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation (NRCS 2015). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-10

51 Table 2-1 lists whether there are map unit components that are rated as hydric soils in the study area. Minor soils (Other) within each association were not evaluated for this criterion. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey Database (NRCS 2015), no major soils within the study area were identified as a hydric soil; however, minor soil components within each soil association may be designated as hydric. 2.4 Mineral and Energy Resources The RRC website was reviewed and oil/gas wells, pipelines, and supporting facilities were identified through the RRC database and during field reconnaissance surveys. Multiple active and historic gravel quarries/pits were identified within the study area through review of USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps and during field reconnaissance surveys. A large active limestone quarry (Texas Crushed Stone) is located in the northeast portion of the study area. 2.5 Water Resources Surface Water Water resources evaluated for this study include lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and floodplains. Information on water resources within the study area were obtained from a variety of sources including the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), National Hydrology Dataset (NHD), USGS topographical maps, aerial photographs, and through field reconnaissance. The study area is located entirely within the Brazos River Basin. Brushy Creek meanders through the study area in a southeast direction, entering the study area near the Leander substation and exits the study area south of the Round Rock substation. Other named perennial and intermittent streams within the study area include Chandler Branch, West Fork Smith Branch, Onion Branch, Block House, Spanish Oak, Mason, Cotton Wood, Post Oak, and South Brushy creeks. Creeks within the study area generally flow in a south or east direction and into Brushy Creek, with the exception of West Fork Smith Branch. West Fork Smith Branch flows northeast into the South Fork San Gabriel River, located approximately six miles northeast of the study area. Brushy Creek eventually flows into the San Gabriel River, approximately 39 miles east of the study area. Several additional unnamed streams, ponds, stock tanks, and SCS reservoirs are also within the study area. There are no major reservoirs or rivers within the study area. Review of the 2012 TWDB State Water Plan and 2011 Regional Water Plan (Region G Brazos) did not indicate any proposed reservoir projects within the study area (TWDB 2011a, 2012). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-11

52 Under 31 TAC 357.8, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has identified Ecologically Significant Stream Segments (ESSS) based on habitat value, threatened and endangered species, species diversity, and aesthetic value criteria. No ESSS were identified within the study area (TPWD 2015a). In accordance with Section 303(d) and 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the TCEQ identifies surface waters for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. Review of the TCEQ 303(d) (2012) indicates Brushy Creek meets these water quality standards for bacteria Ground Water The major ground water aquifers mapped within the study area include the Trinity and Edwards Aquifers. No minor aquifers were identified within the study area. The Trinity Aquifer covers a large area across central and northeast Texas. It consists primarily of limestone, sand, clay, gravel, and conglomerates. The average freshwater saturated thickness is about 600 feet with total dissolved solids, sulfates, and chloride increasing with the depth of the aquifer. The Edwards Aquifer covers a large area across south-central Texas. Water is contained within partially dissolved limestone that creates a highly permeable aquifer. The average freshwater saturated thickness is approximately 560 feet, with a thickness of 200 to 600 feet. The water is generally used for municipal, irrigation, and recreational purposes (TWDB 2011b). The study area lies within the Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones. The recharge zone is a 1,250 square mile area where highly faulted and fractured limestone outcrops at the land surface, allowing large quantities of water to flow into the aquifer. Before construction occurs within the Edwards Aquifer recharge, transition, or contributing zones, a plan must be reviewed and approved by the TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Protection Program (TWDB 2015a). Other ground water resources such as public and private water wells and natural springs were identified using the TWDB (1975, 2015b) data, TPWD (2015b) data and USGS topographic maps (USGS 2015b). Springs and seeps within the study area have the potential to be inhabited by the federally threatened Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia) and/or Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae). Several springs and groundwater seeps were identified throughout the study area. These features were mapped using GIS and taken into consideration during the routing process. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-12

53 2.5.3 Floodplains Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain mapping data were reviewed for the study area. Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the 100-year floodplains within the study area are generally associated Brushy Creek, other named creeks, and their tributaries. These areas may occur within low lying creek beds, bottoms, and associated depressional areas. The 100-year flood (1% flood or base flood) represents a flood event that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded for any given year (FEMA 2015). 2.6 Ecological Resources Information on sensitive wildlife and vegetation resources within the study area was obtained from a variety of sources, including correspondence with the USFWS and TPWD. Additional information was obtained from published literature and technical reports. All biological resource data for the study area were mapped using GIS. For the purpose of this EA, emphasis was placed on obtaining known locations of unique vegetative communities and habitat for special status species that have been previously documented within the study area. Special status species include those listed by the USFWS as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate; and those listed by TPWD as threatened, endangered or as a rare species. A GIS file of known occurrences for listed species and/or sensitive vegetative communities was obtained from the TPWD s TXNDD on March 12, 2015 and again on March 22, Although the TXNDD (2015, 2016) was reviewed, these data do not preclude the potential for a species to exist within the study area. Only a thorough review of existing habitats and/or a species specific survey could determine the presence or absence of a special status species Vegetation As shown in Figure 2-3, the study area is located in the southern portion of the Cross Timbers Vegetational Area (Gould 1960). The study area is also located within the western boundary of the Edwards Plateau Level III Ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2007), with the Texas Blackland Prairies Level III Ecoregion lying along the eastern boundary of the study area. Frye et al. (1984) describe the typical vegetation types within the study area as Live Oak (Quercus fusiformis) - Ashe Juniper (Juniperus ashei) Woods and Silver Bluestem (Bothriochloa saccharoides) - Texas Wintergrass (Nassella leucotricha) Grassland. The paragraphs below provide general descriptions of the historical climax vegetative communities associated with each ecoregion. Species occurrence and density depends on location, hydrology, soil type and magnitude of previous ground disturbance or land management activities. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-13

54 The Live Oak-Ashe Juniper Woods typically occur on the shallow limestone soils of the Edwards Plateau. Additional vegetation within this area may include Texas red oak (Quercus buckleyi), shin oak (Quercus sinuata), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), sumac (Rhus spp.), escarpment cherry (Prunus serotina var. eximia), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), Texas mountain laurel (Sophora secundiflora), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), twist leaf yucca (Yucca rupicola), elbowbush (Forestiera pubescens), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), gramas (Bouteloua spp.), meadow dropseed (Sporobolus drummondii), and Texas wintergrass (Griffith et al. 2007; Wrede 2010). The Silver Bluestem -Texas Wintergrass Grasslands vegetation type is primarily found in the Cross Timbers and Prairies regions. Additional vegetation within this area may include little bluestem, gramas, three-awn (Aristida spp.), tall dropseed (Sporobolus compositus), buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides), windmill grass (Chloris spp.), hairy tridens (Erioneuron pilosum), tumblegrass (Schedonnardus paniculatus), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), broomweed (Amphiachyris dracunculoides), Texas bluebonnet (Lupinus texensis), live oak, post oak (Quercus stellata), and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) (Griffith et al. 2007; Wrede 2010). Edwards Plateau Ecoregion The Edwards Plateau Ecoregion is a limestone plateau dissected by sparse perennial and intermittent streams. Because of the limestone substrates, karst features may be common in this region. Karst features form from the erosion and dissolution of limestone, allowing underground drainage. Because of the poor and rocky soils, this region is mostly used for grazing cattle, goats, sheep, or other livestock. (Griffith et al. 2007; Wrede 2010). Historically, fire was an important factor to the Edwards Plateau ecosystem, with the absence of regular fires, woody vegetation has encroached on many native grasslands. Most of this region is covered by juniper-oak (Juniperus Quercus spp.) or mesquite-oak (Prosopis Quercus spp.) savanna (Griffith et al. 2007). Tall-grasses including cane bluestem (Bothriochloa barbinodis), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), little bluestem, and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) may be common in protected areas with good soil moisture. Short and mid-grasses including side-oats grama, buffalograss, and Texas grama may be common on shallower and rocky soils (Hatch et al. 1990). Wildflowers, such as Texas bluebonnets, Indian blanket (Gaillardia aestivalus), coreopsis (Coreopsis basalis), and winecup (Callirhoe digitata), are common in the spring (Griffith et al. 2007). Review of the TPWD Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas (TPWD 2015b), indicated several types of ecological systems potentially occurring within the study area, as shown in Table 2-2. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-14

55 TABLE 2-2 POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Barren Edwards Plateau: Oak/Ashe Juniper Slope Forest Blackland Prairie: Disturbance or Tame Grassland Edwards Plateau: Oak/Hardwood Motte and Woodland Central Texas: Riparian Deciduous Shrubland Edwards Plateau: Oak/Hardwood Slope Forest Central Texas: Riparian Evergreen Shrubland Edwards Plateau: Post Oak Motte and Woodland Central Texas: Riparian Hardwood/Evergreen Forest Edwards Plateau: Riparian Ashe Juniper Forest Central Texas: Riparian Hardwood Forest Edwards Plateau: Riparian Ashe Juniper Shrub land Central Texas: Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation Edwards Plateau: Riparian Deciduous Shrub land Central Texas: Riparian Juniper Forest Edwards Plateau: Riparian Hardwood/Ashe Juniper Forest Central Texas: Riparian Live Oak Forest Edwards Plateau: Riparian Hardwood Forest Edwards Plateau: Ashe Juniper/Live Oak Shrub land Edwards Plateau: Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation Edwards Plateau: Ashe Juniper/Live Oak Slope Shrub land Edwards Plateau: Riparian Live Oak Forest Edwards Plateau: Ashe Juniper Motte and Woodland Edwards Plateau: Savanna Grassland Edwards Plateau: Ashe Juniper Slope Forest Edwards Plateau: Shin Oak Shrubland Edwards Plateau: Deciduous Oak/Evergreen Motte and Woodland Edwards Plateau: Shin Oak Slope Shrub land Edwards Plateau: Floodplain Ashe Juniper Forest Native Invasive: Deciduous Woodland Edwards Plateau: Floodplain Ashe Juniper Shrubland Native Invasive: Juniper Shrubland Edwards Plateau: Floodplain Deciduous Shrubland Native Invasive: Juniper Woodland Edwards Plateau: Floodplain Hardwood/Ashe Juniper Forest Native Invasive: Mesquite Shrub land Edwards Plateau: Floodplain Hardwood Forest Open Water Edwards Plateau: Floodplain Herbaceous Vegetation Row Crops Edwards Plateau: Floodplain Live Oak Forest Urban High Intensity Edwards Plateau: Live Oak Motte and Woodland Urban Low Intensity Edwards Plateau: Live Oak Slope Forest Source: TPWD 2015b. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-15

56 STUDY AREA ² Miles Source: Gould, F.W., Hoffman, G.O., and Rechenthin, C.A. 1960, modified Legend Vegetational Areas Boundary 1 Pineywoods 2 Gulf Prairies and Marshes 3 Post Oak Savannah 4 Blackland Prairies 5 Cross Timbers and Prairies 6 South Texas Plains 7 Edwards Plateau 8 Rolling Plains 9 High Plains 10 Trans-Pecos County Boundary Figure 2-3 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA IN RELATION TO THE VEGETATIONAL AREAS OF TEXAS Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project

57 2.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife The study area is divided by the Balconian Biotic Province to the west and the Texan Biotic Province in the east, (see Figure 2-4) as described by Blair (1950). At the time of publication, species diversity within the Balconian Biotic Province was noted to include 15 different anurans (frogs and toads), seven urodeles (salamanders and newts), 36 snake species, 16 lizards, two land turtles, and 57 species of mammals (Blair 1950). The Texan Biotic Province was known to support 13 anurans, five urodeles, 39 snake species, nine lizards, two land turtles, and least 49 species of mammals (Blair 1950). Amphibian species (frogs, toads and salamanders) that may typically occur within the study area are listed in Table 2-3. Frogs and toads may occur in all vegetation types, while salamanders are typically restricted to moist hydric habitats (Tipton et al. 2012). TABLE 2-3 REPRESENTATIVE AMPHIBIAN SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Frogs/Toads Acris blanchardi Blanchard's cricket frog Anaxyrus debilis debilis Eastern Chihuahuan green toad Anaxyrus punctatus Red-spotted toad Anaxyrus speciosus Texas toad Anaxyrus woodhousii woodhousii Rocky Mountain toad Eleutherodactylus marnockii Cliff chirping frog Gastrophryne olivaceus Western narrow-mouthed toad Hyla chrysoscelis Cope's gray treefrog Hyla cinerea Green treefrog Hyla versicolor Gray treefrog Incilius nebulifer Gulf Coast toad Lithobates berlandieri Rio Grande leopard frog Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Pseudacris clarkii Spotted chorus frog Pseudacris streckeri Strecker's chorus frog Scaphiopus couchi Couch s spadefoot Salamanders Ambystoma texanum Small-mouthed salamander Eurycea naufragia Georgetown salamander Eurycea tonkawae Jollyville Plateau salamander Plethodon albagula Western slimy salamander Source: Dixon HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-17

58 NAVAHONIAN KANSAN TEXAN CHIHUAHUAN BALCONIAN AUSTRO- RIPARIAN STUDY AREA TAMAULIPAN ² Miles Legend Biotic Province Boundary County Boundary Figure 2-4 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA IN RELATION TO THE BIOTIC PROVINCES OF TEXAS Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project Source: Blair, 1950, modified

59 Reptiles (turtles, lizards and snakes) that may typically occur in the study area are listed in Table 2-4. These include those species that are more commonly observed near water (i.e., aquatic turtles) and those that are more common in terrestrial habitats (Dixon 2013). TABLE 2-4 REPRESENTATIVE REPTILIAN SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Turtles Apalone spinifera Spiny softshell Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle Kinosternon flavescens Yellow mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum Eastern mud turtle Pseudemys texana Texas cooter Sternotherus odoratus Eastern musk turtle Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle Terrapene ornata ornata Plains box turtle Trachemys scripta elegans Red-eared slider Lizards Anolis carolinensis Green anole Aspidoscelis gularis Common spotted whiptail Aspidoscelis sexlineata sexlineata Eastern six-lined racerunner Cophosuarus texanus texanus Texas greater earless lizard Crotaphytus collaris collaris Eastern collared lizard Gerrhonotus infernalis Texas alligator lizard Hemidactylus turcicus Mediterranean gecko Ophisaurus attenuatus Slender glass lizard Phrynosoma cornutum Texas horned lizard Plestiodon tetragammus brevilineatus Short-lined skink Sceloporus consobrinus Prairie lizard Sceloporus olivaceus Texas spiny lizard Scincella lateralis Little brown skink Snakes Agkistrodon contortrix laticinctus Broad-banded copperhead Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma Western cottonmouth Coluber constrictor flaviventris Eastern yellow-bellied racer Coluber flagellum testaceus Western coachwhip Coluber taeniatus Striped whipsnake Crotalus atrox Western diamond-backed rattlesnake Diadophis punctatus arnyi Prairie ring-necked snake Pantherophis obsoletus Western ratsnake Heterodon platirhinos Eastern hog-nosed snake Lampropeltis holbrooki Speckled kingsnake Micrurus tener Texas coralsnake HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-19

60 TABLE 2-4 REPRESENTATIVE REPTILIAN SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Nerodia erythrogaster Plain-bellied watersnake Nerodia rhombifer Diamond-backed water snake Opheodrys aestivus Rough greensnake Pantherophis emoryi Great plains ratsnake Pituophis catenifer sayi Bullsnake Rena dulcis Texas threadsnake Rhinocheilus lecontei Long-nosed snake Salvadora grahamiae lineata Texas patch-nosed snake Sonora semiannulata Western groundsnake Storeria dekayi texana Texas brownsnake Tantilla gracilis Flat-headed snake Thamnophis cyrtopsis ocellatus Eastern black-necked gartersnake Thamnophis marcianus Checkered gartersnake Thamnophis proximus Western ribbonsnake Thamnophis siralis annectens Texas gartersnake Tropidoclonion lineatum Lined snake Virginia striatula Rough earthsnake Source: Dixon Numerous avian species are present within the study area. Bird species occurring within the study area include resident and summer/winter resident migratory species. Year-round residents are listed in Table 2-5. Winter residents that may occur in the study area are listed in Table 2-6. Summer residents that may occur in the study area are listed in Table 2-7 (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). Additional transient bird species may migrate within or through the study area in the spring and fall and use the area to rest and feed before continuing migration. The likelihood for occurrence of each species will depend upon suitable habitat and the season. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). TABLE 2-5 REPRESENTATIVE RESIDENT BIRD SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird Aix sponsa Wood duck Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow Ardea alba Great egret Ardea herodias Great blue heron Baeolophus bicolor x atricristatus Tufted titmouse x Black-crested titmouse hybrid Bubo virginianus Great horned owl Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Caracara cheriway Crested caracara Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal Cathartes aura Turkey vulture HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-20

61 TABLE 2-5 REPRESENTATIVE RESIDENT BIRD SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite Columba livia Rock pigeon Columbina inca Inca dove Coragyps atratus Black vulture Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax Common raven Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied whistling duck Eremophila alpestris Horned lark Fulica americana American coot Geococcyx californianus Greater roadrunner Haemorhous mexicanus House finch Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher Megascops asio Eastern screech-owl Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied woodpecker Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron Passer domesticus House sparrow Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker Picoides scalaris Ladder-backed woodpecker Poecile carolinensis Carolina chickadee Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher Quiscalus mexicanus Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow Spizella pusilla Field sparrow Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared-dove Strix varia Barred owl Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark Sturnus vulgaris European starling Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Canyon wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina wren Turdus migratorius American robin Tyto alba Barn owl Zenaida asiatica White-winged dove Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Source: Lockwood and Freeman HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-21

62 TABLE 2-6 REPRESENTATIVE WINTER BIRD SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper Anas acuta Northern pintail Anas americana American wigeon Anas clypeata Northern shoveler Anas crecca Green-winged teal Anas discors Blue-winged teal Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Anas strepera Gadwall Aythya affinis Lesser scaup Aythya americana Redhead Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck Aythya valisineria Canvasback Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing Branta hutchinsii Cackling goose Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush Certhia americana Brown creeper Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Colaptes auratus Northern flicker Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird Falco columbarius Merlin Falco sparverius American kestrel Gallinago delicata Wilson's snipe Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat Grus canadensis Sandhill crane Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Oreothylpis celata Orange-crowned warbler Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow Passerella iliaca Fox sparrow Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow Porzana carolina Sora Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped warbler Spinus tristis American goldfinch Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs Troglodytes aedon House wren Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow Source: Lockwood and Freeman HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-22

63 TABLE 2-7 REPRESENTATIVE SUMMER BIRD SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk Antrostomus carolinensis Chuck-will's-widow Archilochus alexandri Black-chinned hummingbird Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret Butorides virescens Green heron Chaetura pelagica Chimney swift Chordeiles minor Common nighthawk Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo Contopus virens Eastern wood-pewee Egretta thula Snowy egret Gallinula galeata Common gallinule Hirundo rustica Barn swallow Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat Icterus spurius Orchard oriole Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi kite Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler Myiarchus crinitus Great crested flycatcher Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned night-heron Passerina caerulea Blue grosbeak Passerina ciris Painted bunting Passerina cyanea Indigo bunting Petrochelidon fulva Cave swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow Phalacrocorax brasilianus Neotropic cormorant Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Common poorwill Piranga rubra Summer tanager Progne subis Purple martin Pyrocephalus rubinus Vermilion flycatcher Setophaga chrysoparia Golden-cheeked warbler Sialia sialis Eastern bluebird Spiza americana Dickcissel Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough-winged swallow Tyrannus forficatus Scissor-tailed flycatcher Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated vireo Vireo griseus White-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed vireo Source: Lockwood and Freeman Mammals that may typically occur in the study area are listed in Table 2-8 (Schmidly 2004). The occurrence of each species will be dependent on suitable habitat available with some species, such as bats, migrating through the study area. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-23

64 TABLE 2-8 REPRESENTATIVE MAMMALIAN SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name Baiomys taylori Northern pygmy mouse Bassariscus astutus Ringtail Canis latrans Coyote Chaetodipus hispidus Hispid pocket mouse Cryptotis parva Least shrew Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine Lasiurus borealis Eastern red bat Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat Lynx rufus Bobcat Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk Mus musculus House mouse Myocastor coypus Nutria Myotis velifer Cave myotis Neotoma floridana Eastern woodrat Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Perimyotis subflavus American perimyotis Perognathus merriami Merriam s pocket mouse Peromyscus attwateri Texas mouse Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse Peromyscus pectoralis White-ankled mouse Procyon lotor Northern raccoon Rattus norvegicus Norway rat Rattus rattus Roof rat Reithrodontomys fulvescens Fulvous harvest mouse Reithrodontomys montanus Plains harvest mouse Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole Sciurus niger Eastern fox squirrel Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat Spermophilus mexicanus Mexican ground squirrel Spermophilus variegatus Rock squirrel Spilogale putorius Eastern spotted skunk Sus scrofa Feral pig Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian free-tailed bat Urocyon cinereoargenteus Common gray fox Vulpes vulpes Red fox Source: Schmidly HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-24

65 2.6.3 Aquatic Habitat Mapped wetlands information was incorporated for the study area from the USFWS NWI database (USFWS 2016a). NWI maps are based on topography and interpretation of infrared satellite data and color aerial photographs and are classified under the Cowardin System (Cowardin et al. 1979). NWI wetlands types identified within the study area include freshwater palustrine emergent (PEM), forested/shrub (PFO), ponds (PUB), and lacustrine. PEM wetlands are primarily associated with depressional areas and along the margins of open water areas. PFO wetlands exist typically in depressional or riparian woodlands near creeks and rivers, and ponds. Mapped PUB and lacustrine wetlands are typically associated with shallow freshwater stock ponds, retention ponds, SCS site reservoirs, and other small impoundments. Perennial and intermittent streams and creeks exist in the study area, and may be prone to flash flooding after heavy rain storms. Perennial aquatic environments may support species of smartweeds and docks (Polygonaceae), pennyworts (Hydrocotyle spp.), widgeon-grass (Ruppia spp.), pondweed (Potamogetonacae), and duckweeds (Lemna spp.). Emergent wetlands may be located along the edges of ponds and streams during wetter periods and may be comprised of such species as rushes (Juncus spp.), spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and flatsedges (Cyperus spp.) (Chadde 2012a, 2012b). Typical woody plant species in these wetland or riparian areas include American elm (Ulmus americana), sycamore (Platanus spp.), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), cottonwood (Populus sp.), black willow (Salix nigra), and rattlebush (Sesbania spp). Bottomland/riparian areas were mapped by POWER personnel through aerial photography and topographic map interpretation. The intermittent flowing streams support aquatic species primarily adapted to ephemeral pool habitats. Because they consist of small headwater drainages, persistent flow is unlikely to be sufficient to support any substantial lotic assemblage. Aquatic species in this habitat are typically adapted to rapid dispersal and completion of life cycles in pool habitats having fine-grained substrates. In streams dominated by scoured, sandy-clay bottoms, accumulations of woody debris or leaf pack provide the most important feeding and refuge areas for invertebrates and forage fish. The softer muddy bottoms generally harbor substantial populations of burrowing invertebrates (e.g., larval diptera and oligochaetes) which can be an important food source to higher trophic levels (Hubbs 1957). The perennial streams and lakes offer relatively stable water levels and the constant pools and flow facilitate stable population growth. Species with flowing water or pooled area habitat requirements will use the perennial streams and those adapted for deeper waters will use the lake/pond environments. With HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-25

66 distance downstream, especially in pooled areas, the fish community tends to be heavily dominated by widely distributed sunfish (Lepomis spp.), bass (Micropterus spp.), and catfish (Ictalurus spp.) when sufficient water is present (Hubbs 1957). Several species of turtles, snakes and amphibians are also dependent on perennial surface waters for their habitat requirements. Several of these species will infrequently use terrestrial habitats to migrate from between surface waters, but they primarily use impounded and perennial surface waters. Ponds located in the study area exhibit variability in terms of their age, drainage, use by livestock, past fish stocking and fertilization history. These aquatic habitats are almost always exposed to full sunlight and do not typically experience the variations in flow as do streams and rivers after heavy rainfall events. Typically, fluctuations in water level are experienced during the summer months because of high evaporation rates and repeated heavy rainfall required to fill the ponds completely. Periods of extended drought in the region may reduce these seasonal water level fluctuations or dry the pond completely. Bottom materials in these ponds are typically universally silt-sized particles, either naturally occurring or added as a liner to prevent leakage Threatened and Endangered Species For this routing study, emphasis was placed on obtaining documented occurrences of special status species and/or their potential habitat within the study area. The documented occurrences of species of concern and/or other unique vegetative communities within the study area were also reviewed. Special status species include those listed by the USFWS (2016b) as threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate; and those species listed by TPWD (2015c) as threatened or endangered or rare. POWER requested a GIS data layer of historical known occurrences for listed species and/or sensitive vegetative communities from the Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD 2015, 2016). For the purpose of this study, the TXNDD information is not used as a substitute for a presence/absence survey, but as an indication of previous occurrences within suitable habitat for the species. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the USFWS maintains a listing of all threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for each county (USFWS 2016b). By definition, a threatened species is defined as likely to become endangered within the near foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Candidate species are those that have sufficient information on their biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support listing as threatened or endangered and are likely to be proposed for listing in the near foreseeable future. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-26

67 The ESA also provides for the conservation of designated critical habitat, which is defined as the areas of land, water, and air space that an endangered species needs for survival. These areas include sites with food and water, breeding areas, cover or shelter sites, and sufficient habitat to provide for normal population growth and behavior for the species. Review of USFWS (2016c) data indicates there are two areas of designated critical habitat (surface and sub-surface) for the Jollyville Plateau salamander located within the study area. Critical habitat has been proposed for the Georgetown salamander but a final designation has not occurred. No proposed critical habitats for the Georgetown salamander were identified within the study area (USFWS 2016c). Threatened and Endangered Plant Species County listings for federal/state-listed species were obtained from the USFWS and TPWD (USFWS 2016b; TPWD 2015c). Review of these lists indicated there are no listed federal/state threatened and endangered plant species for Williamson County; therefore, none are expected to occur in the study area. Threatened and Endangered Animal Species The USFWS (2016b) lists nine species (two amphibians, one arachnid, four birds, and two insects) as federally threatened or endangered for Williamson County. However, the TPWD s (2015c) Annotated County Lists of Rare Species identifies 22 federally and/or state-listed, threatened, endangered, candidate, and potentially extirpated species (Table 2-9). The TPWD county listing includes the same species that USFWS lists. Although only federally listed threatened or endangered species are protected under the ESA, state-listed species may receive protection under other Federal and/or State laws, such as the MBTA, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), Chapters 67, 68, and 88 of the TPWD Code, and sections and of Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code. LCRA TSC may also elect to enroll in the Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (RHCP) through the Williamson County Conservation Foundation. Enrollment in the RHCP allows applicants to jointly comply with the requirements of the ESA for selected listed species in a more efficient method compared to processing individual ESA permits through the USFWS. A brief species description life history and habitat requirements are summarized below for each listed species. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-27

68 TABLE 2-9 LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED ANIMAL SPECIES FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TX SPECIES LEGAL STATUS Scientific Name Common Name USFWS¹ TPWD² Amphibians Eurycea chisholmensis Salado Springs salamander T - Eurycea naufragia Georgetown salamander T - Eurycea tonkawae Jollyville Plateau salamander T - Arachnids Texella reyesi Bone Cave harvestman E - Birds Anthus spragueii Sprague's pipit C - Calidris canutus rufa Red knot T - Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon DL T Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon DL T Falco peregrinus tundrius Arctic peregrine falcon DL - Grus americana Whooping crane E E Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle DL T Setophaga chrysoparia Golden-cheeked warbler E E Vireo atricapilla Black-capped vireo E E Fishes Notropis buccula Smalleye shiner E - Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose shiner E - Insects Batrisodes texanus Coffin Cave mold beetle E - Rhadine persephone Tooth Cave ground beetle E - Mammals Canis rufus Red wolf E, EXT E, EXT Mollusks Quadrula houstonensis Smooth pimpleback C T Truncilla macrodon Texas fawnsfoot C T Reptiles Crotalus horridus Timber rattlesnake - T Phrynosoma cornutum Texas horned lizard - T 1 USFWS 2016b. 2 TPWD 2015c. E - Federal and/or State-Listed Endangered T - Federal and/or State-Listed Threatened DL - Federally Delisted C - Federal Candidate for Listing EXT Extirpated from study area HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-28

69 Federally Listed Species POWER contracted with Cambrian Environmental to conduct an impacts analysis for federally listed salamander and karst invertebrate species within the study area boundary (Cambrian Environmental 2016). Cambrian Environmental identified areas of known and potential habitat locations for these listed species. These data were mapped using GIS and taken into consideration during the routing process. A brief species life history, habitat requirements, and potential for occurrence are summarized below and potential impacts are summarized in Section AMPHIBIANS Georgetown Salamander The Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia) is a small (~1.1 in) spring-dwelling salamander found primarily in drainages of the San Gabriel River within Williamson County. This species is known to occupy seventeen similar habitats to the north within the San Gabriel River drainage basin (Cambrian Environmental 2016). This species is similar to the Jollyville Plateau salamander, is also thought to be completely aquatic, and occur primarily near spring outflows, typically under rocks or in gravel/cobble substrates. Habitat degradation and destruction are thought to be the main threats to this species (Tipton et al. 2012). Only one confirmed location of this species is known to occur within the study area at Garey Spring (Cambrian Environmental 2016). Additional portions of the study area may overlap aquifer recharge zones for other areas of potential Georgetown salamander habitat (Cambrian Environmental 2016). This species may occur within the northern portions of study area, where suitable aquatic habitats exist. Jollyville Plateau Salamander The Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) is a small (~1.2 inches) spring-dwelling salamander found in Travis and Williamson counties. This species is similar in appearance to the Georgetown salamander and is also thought to be completely aquatic and occur primarily near spring outflows, typically under rocks or in gravel/cobble substrates. Habitat degradation and destruction are thought to be the main threats to this species (Tipton et al. 2012). USFWS (2016c) data indicates there are two areas of designated critical habitat for the Jollyville Plateau salamander located within the study area. One area is located approximately one-quarter mile west of the intersection of Sam Bass Road and FM 3406; the other is located along the southern boundary of the study area near Avery Ranch. This included both surface and sub-surface areas of designated critical habitat. TXNDD (2015, 2016) and Cambrian Environmental (2016) data identifies several known locations for this species within the study HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-29

70 area and several in the surrounding proximity. This species occurs within the study area where suitable aquatic habitats exist. Salado Springs Salamander The Salado Springs salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis) is a small (~2 inches) surface springs and subterranean waters dwelling salamander. This salamander is thought to be completely aquatic and occur primarily near spring outflows, typically under rocks or in gravel/cobble substrates. This species is only known to occur in two springs near Salado Creek in Bell County, TX (Tipton et al. 2012). This species is not anticipated to occur within the study area ARACHNIDS Bone Cave Harvestman The Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) is a small blind spider (~0.06 to 0.11 inches), found in caves and karst features in Travis and Williamson counties. Primary threats to the species come from habitat loss and degradation. Little is known about the life history of this species (TPWD 2015c). This species is known to occur in certain caves and karst features within the study area (TXNDD 2016; Cambrian Environmental 2016). BIRDS Black-capped Vireo The black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) nests from northern Tamaulipas through west and central Texas and isolated portions of Oklahoma. Populations have declined because of habitat loss/fragmentation from land conversion and brush clearing activities, over-browsing, fire suppression, and brown-headed cowbird nest parasitism (Graber 1961; Campbell 2003). Suitable nesting areas typically consist of a patchy network of dense low shrubland cover with branches extending to the ground. Shrub sized broad-leaved vegetation will in general cover 30 to 60% or greater of the area and be approximately six feet tall or more (Campbell 2003). Habitat vegetation is typically within early succession stages or located on shallow, poor, or eroded soils which encourage the growth of patchy low shrublands (Graber 1961). The vireo nests from March to July with the young fledging in three to four weeks (Graber 1961; Campbell 2003). It is not uncommon for these vireos to have multiple nesting attempts within one breeding season, building a new nest with each nesting attempt (Graber 1961). Modeling potential black-capped vireo habitat is difficult and generally inaccurate because the land-use history, vegetation heights, and vegetation species composition cannot be accurately identified with aerial imagery or topographical imagery. Pedestrian field surveys may be needed to determine presence or HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-30

71 absence of occupied black-capped vireo habitat. This species may occur within the study area as a breeding spring/summer resident, where suitable shrubland habitat is available (Lockwood 2008). Golden-cheeked Warbler The golden-cheeked warbler s (Setophaga chrysoparia) entire nesting range is confined to habitat in 33 counties located in central Texas, with nesting typically occurring from March - May (Campbell 2003). The warbler migrates to overwinter in southern Mexico and northern Central America. Populations have declined over the past century because of habitat loss and fragmentation from urban development, land conversion, and commercial harvest of mature juniper trees (Campbell 2003). Nest parasitism from brown-headed cowbirds may have also contributed to population declines in some areas (Pulich 1976). The species nests in mature juniper-oak woodland areas with a moderate to high density of mature Ashe juniper trees mixed with deciduous trees creating dense foliage in the upper canopy (Pulich 1976; Campbell 2003). These oak-juniper woodland types are typical in moist areas located along steep-sided slopes, drainages and bottomlands, but this species will also occur in upland oak-juniper woodlands on flatter topography (Pulich 1976). For this project, potential golden-cheeked warbler breeding habitat was modeled using three published habitat models: Diamond (2007) - Model C, Loomis Partners (2009), and Morrison et al. (2010). The models identified potential oak-juniper woodland habitats. LCRA contracted with Blanton & Associates, Inc. (2015) to update the modeled habitat given the changes in land use within the study area and more recent removal or degradation of habitat that occurred after the models were created. The resulting potential habitat data retrieved were mapped using GIS and taken into consideration while developing potential route segments. The models output varied in conservativeness and initial field reconnaissance observed that larger tracts and areas where at least two models overlap are more conducive to representing potential warbler nesting habitat. TXNDD (2015, 2016) data indicated one historical golden-cheeked warbler observation within the study area, and several in the surrounding areas. Pedestrian field surveys may be needed to determine presence or absence of golden-cheeked warblers and verify modeled nesting habitat. This species may occur within the study area as a breeding spring/summer resident, where suitable oak-juniper woodland habitat is available (Lockwood 2008). Red Knot The red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is a migratory bird which nests in the drier arctic tundra areas and overwinters along shorelines along the Gulf of Mexico coastline and into Central and South America. A spring migratory stopover is located in Delaware Bay where the species gorges on horseshoe crab eggs (USFWS 2013). This species is not anticipated to occur within the study area except as a rare nonbreeding migrant (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-31

72 Whooping Crane The study area is located within the Texas portion of the primary central migratory corridor for the whooping crane (Grus americana). The primary migration path includes a 220-mile wide corridor that begins at their nesting site at Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada and continues south to their wintering grounds at the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge along the Texas coast. The migratory pathway contains 95% of all confirmed whooping crane stopover sightings, during migration, through spring 2007 (USFWS 2009). Whooping cranes overwinter in Texas from November through March. During migration, they typically fly at altitudes greater than 1,000 feet but will roost and feed in areas away from human disturbance during nightly stopovers. Stopover areas include large rivers, lakes and associated wetlands, playa lakes, pastureland, and cropland (USFWS 2009). A small population was known to winter at Granger Lake in eastern Williamson County during , when drought was thought to have caused poor coastal habitat conditions. This species may occur in the study area as a rare nonbreeding migrant where suitable habitats exist (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). FISHES Sharpnose Shiner The sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) is endemic to the Brazos River drainage and may be found in portions of the Colorado River above Lake Buchanan as a result of introductions. This species is generally found in river runs and pools and is thought to prefer large turbid waters with a sand, gravel, and clay-mud bottoms (TPWD 2015c). This species is not anticipated to occur within the study area, because a lack of suitable habitat. Smalleye Shiner The smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula) is endemic to upper sections of the Brazos River Basin, and may also be found in portions of the Colorado River near Austin as a result of introductions. This species typically inhabits river channels (Thomas et al. 2007) or medium to large prairie streams with sandy substrate and turbid to clear warm water (TPWD 2015c). This species is not anticipated to occur within the study area, because a lack of suitable habitat. INSECTS Coffin Cave Mold Beetle The Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus) is a small (~0.12 inches), cave-adapted beetle found in Edwards Limestone caves, sink holes, and other karst features within in Williamson County. All known locations occur within an approximate 17 kilometer (km) stretch within Williamson County. This species is often found under rocks in areas of complete darkness (TPWD 2015c; Campbell 2003). TXNDD (2015, HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-32

73 2016) data indicates one historical occurrence of this species at Inner Space Cavern. This population at Inner Space Cavern is the southernmost known population of this species and although this species has not been identified within the study area, it may occur where suitable cave/karst habitat is present. Tooth Cave Ground Beetle Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone) is a small ( ~0.30 inches), cave-adapted beetle found in Edwards Limestone caves, sink holes, and other karst features within in Travis and Williamson counties (TPWD 2015c). This species occurs in deep, uncompacted silt, where it digs holes to feed on cave cricket eggs deposited into the silt. All known locations occur within an approximate 14 km stretch within Williamson and Travis Counties (TPWD 2015c; Campbell 2003). Review of TXNDD (2015, 2016) and other data sources shows no known occurrences of this species within the study area, although two historical observations are shown within three miles of the study area. This species may occur within the study area, if suitable cave/karst habitat is present. REPTILES Texas Horned Lizard The Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) inhabits open, arid to semiarid regions with sparse vegetation. During winter inactivity periods, this species may burrow 6 to 12 inches underground within brush/rock piles or abandoned animal burrows. Populations are thought to have decreased because of land use conversions, increased pesticide/herbicide use, collection, and increased fire ant populations. The Texas horned lizard forages primarily on the red harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex barbatus), but also consumes grasshoppers, beetles, and grubs (Dixon 2013; Henke and Fair 1998). This species may occur within the study area where suitable habitat exists. Timber Rattlesnake The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) occupies moist lowland forest and hilly woodland areas near surface waters. The species frequently uses fallen hollow logs and stumps as habitat, and forages primarily on small mammals (Dixon 2013). Within Texas, this species typically only occurs within the eastern third of the state. This species is not anticipated to occur within the study area due to a lack of suitable habitat. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-33

74 MAMMALS Red Wolf The red wolf (Canis rufus) historically occurred throughout the eastern half of the state in forests, brushlands, and prairies (Schmidly 2004). Changes in land-use and over hybridization with the coyote (Canis latrans) are thought to have extirpated the red wolf from Texas (TPWD 2015c). This species is not anticipated to occur within the study area. MOLLUSKS The smooth pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis) occurs in the Colorado, Brazos, and San Jacinto river basins and occupies mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel bottoms, within very slow to moderately flowing waters. The Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon) occurs in the Colorado and Brazos river basins and resides in sand, gravel, or sandy-mud bottoms, in moderately flowing waters (Howells et al. 1996; TPWD 2015c). All of these mollusk species may occur within Brazos River Basin, and may occur within the study area where suitable aquatic habitats exist. Federally Delisted Species Bald Eagle The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted in 2007 by the USFWS, because the population has recovered beyond the ESA criteria for listing. The status of the bald eagle population is currently monitored by USFWS and the species is still protected under the MBTA and the BGEPA. Bald eagles may nest and/or winter in Texas. The bald eagle is found primarily near rivers and large lakes and will build large nests in tree tops or on cliffs usually near large bodies of water (Campbell 2003). This species has been observed at Brushy Creek Park and Champion Park along the southwest edge of the study area (Travis Audubon 2016). This species may occur within the study area as a winter or summer migrant where suitable habitat exists (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) state listing includes two subspecies: American peregrine falcon (F. p. anatum) and arctic peregrine falcon (F. p. tundrius). Although only the American subspecies is listed as state threatened, both sub-species are listed together because of their similarity of appearance (TPWD 2015c). Both subspecies are federally delisted because of the recovery of population numbers. The American peregrine falcon inhabits nests in tall cliff eyries and occupies many kinds of habitats during migration, including urban. Stopover habitat during migration may include lake shores and coastlines and the falcon is also a resident breeder in west Texas (Alsop 2002; TPWD 2015c). This species is not anticipated to occur in the study area except as a rare migrant (Lockwood 2008). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-34

75 Federal Candidate Species Sprague s Pipit The Sprague s pipit (Anthus spragueii) is a small grassland bird that avoids edge habitats and is strongly associated with native prairies. Land conversion and overgrazing have led to declining populations. The Sprague s pipit overwinters in Texas from September to April. Preferred habitat includes open native upland prairie, well drained grasslands lacking woody cover, and coastal grasslands, but may also be found in fallow or cut fields (Robbins and Dale 1999; TPWD 2015c). The study area lies on the northern edge of the pipit s coastal winter range in Texas (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). This species may occur within the study area, within suitable grassland habitats, as an uncommon non-breeding winter migrant (Lockwood 2008). Rare Species and Sensitive Vegetation Communities While not regulated, TPWD (2015c) and TXNDD (2015, 2016) data also list rare species and sensitive vegetation communities. TPWD generally recommends consideration for these species and avoidance of the listed vegetation communities when routing linear utility corridors. However, these data do not preclude the potential for each species to exist within the study area. Only a species-specific survey could delineate potential suitable habitat and determine the presence or absence of a special status species. Review of the TXNDD (2015, 2016) data does not identify any species of concern or sensitive vegetation communities within the study area. For a discussion of TPWD listed rare species, please refer to the TPWD letter in Appendix A. 2.7 Community Values The term community values is included as a factor for the consideration of transmission line route certification under Section (c)(4)(A-D) of the Texas Utilities Code. The PUCT CCN application requires information concerning the following items that may reveal community values: Public meeting or public open house Approvals or permits required from other governmental agencies Brief description of the area traversed Habitable structures within 300 feet of the centerline of the proposed project FAA registered airports, private airstrips, and heliports located in the area Irrigated pasture or croplands utilizing center-pivot or other traveling irrigation systems HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-35

76 In addition, POWER also evaluated the proposed project for community values that might not be specifically listed by the PUCT in a rule or the application form, but that might be of importance to the community in the area of the project. The term community values is not formally defined in the PUCT rules. However, in several dockets the PUCT Staff and PUCT Commissioners have used the following as a working definition: the term community values is defined as a shared appreciation of an area or other natural resource by a national, regional, or local community. Examples of a community resource would be a park or recreational area, historical or archeological site, or a scenic vista (aesthetics). POWER and LCRA TSC mailed consultation letters to various local elected and appointed officials and hosted two public open house meetings to identify and collect information regarding community values and community resources. 2.8 Human Development The study area is comprised of numerous political jurisdictions and land uses. Land use data was collected from a variety of federal, state, and local sources and was organized into the following categories: Existing Land Use (Urban/Developed and Agricultural) Existing Linear Facilities and Other Features Transportation Facilities Aviation Facilities Communication Towers Parks and Recreation Areas Existing Land Use Existing land uses were placed into the following categories: urban/developed, agriculture, industrial, and transportation features. The primary sources of land use information were obtained from interpretation of aerial photographs, USGS topographical maps, input from the public and local representatives of the public, and reconnaissance surveys. Habitable Structures - The PUCT definition of a habitable structure was used for this routing study. The PUCT s Substantive Rule (a)(3) defines a habitable structure as structures normally inhabited by humans or intended to be inhabited by humans on a daily or regular basis. Habitable structures include, but are not limited to, single-family and multi-family dwellings and related structures, mobile homes, HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-36

77 apartment buildings, commercial structures, industrial structures, business structures, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. Habitable structures were identified using aerial photograph interpretation and reconnaissance surveys from public points of view. Locations of the habitable structures are depicted on Figures 4-27 and 5-1, and the distance from each route centerline is presented in Tables 5-4 through Urban/Developed The urban/developed classification represents concentrations of surface-disturbing land uses, which include habitable structures and other developed areas characterized with low, medium, and high intensities. The various levels of development include a mix of residential, commercial, and/or industrial land uses. Developed low, medium, and high intensity areas were identified using aerial photograph interpretation and reconnaissance surveys. These classifications are described below: Developed Low Intensity areas typically include rural settings with single-family housing units. Developed Medium Intensity areas typically include single-family housing units that are grouped in residential subdivisions and may include peripheral commercial structures. Developed High Intensity includes highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses, and commercial/industrial parks. Areas with the highest concentration of development are typically located within or near the towns and communities in the study area. Schools The study area is located within the following three school districts: Georgetown Independent School District (ISD), Leander ISD, and Round Rock ISD. Georgetown ISD has one existing school located within the study area. Leander ISD has seven existing schools located within the study area. Round Rock ISD has six existing schools located within the study area (TEA 2014). Leander ISD also provided information regarding its plans for future school campuses within the study area. Leander ISD has acquired property for future school sites (elementary, middle and high school) at the intersection of Leander Rd. and Sam Bass Rd. (CR 175). Leander ISD also has acquired property for a future school site (elementary school) on Journey Parkway (CR 179) in front of Florence W. Stiles Middle School near Ronald Reagan Blvd. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-37

78 Agriculture Agriculture is a significant segment of the economy throughout Texas, and the study area county has active agricultural sectors. According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service s 2012 Census of Agriculture, the total market value for agricultural products sold for Williamson County was $129,648,000, a decrease of 32% over the 2007 market value. Crop sales accounted for the majority of agricultural sales in the study area county at $74,987,000 (58%). The number of farms in the study area county also decreased from 2,728 in 2007 to 2,542 in 2012 (a decrease of 7%) (USDA 2012) Existing Linear Facilities and Other Features Based on PUCT Substantive Rule (b)(3)(B)(i-iii), paralleling or utilizing existing compatible ROWs and other features are areas that should be considered as areas of opportunity when selecting route alternatives for new transmission lines. Existing compatible ROWs include electrical transmission lines, distribution lines, railroads, and roadways. Other features include property lines or other natural or cultural features. Two existing transmission lines, a railroad, several roadways, parcel lines, and apparent property boundaries were considered as potential paralleling opportunities. Data sources used to identify existing electrical transmission lines include utility company and regional system maps, Ventyx data (2014), aerial imagery, USGS topographical maps, additional available planning documents, and field reconnaissance. Transmission lines identified include eight 138-kV transmission lines in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the study area. There are also two single-circuit, 138-kV transmission lines along the eastern study area boundary that provided an opportunity to rebuild the existing lines to include the proposed 138-kV transmission line on triple-circuit capable structures. Distribution lines are prevalent throughout the developed portions of the study area, and in some cases also provided an opportunity to overbuild the proposed 138-kV transmission line onto the existing distribution line alignments where there is not sufficient space for the new transmission line to be built on a separate ROW. This would require replacing the existing distribution structures with larger transmission structures and then relocating the distribution circuits onto the transmission structures. Five active, operating oil or gas pipelines were identified within the study area (RRC 2015c). One wastewater pipeline identified within the study area runs in a general north to south direction along Brushy Creek between Sam Bass Road (CR 175) and Ronald Reagan Boulevard and presented paralleling opportunities for several segments located in this area. One treated water pipeline also identified within the study area runs in a general west to east direction along CR 272 and continuing along property boundaries between Ronald Reagan Boulevard and Sam Bass Road (CR 175) and presented paralleling opportunities for several segments located in this area. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-38

79 2.8.3 Transportation Facilities Federal, state, and local roadways were identified using TxDOT county transportation maps, Texas Natural Resource Information System (TNRIS) data, and field reconnaissance surveys. The roadway transportation system within the study area includes I-35 and Texas Toll 183A, as major roadways. The roadway transportation within the study area also includes the following FM roads: FM 1431 (Whitestone), 2243 (Leander Road), and 3406 (Old Settler s Boulevard). Numerous county and local roads (paved and unpaved) were also identified. TxDOT s Project Tracker that contains detailed information by county for every road/highway project which is or could be scheduled for construction was reviewed to identify any state roadway projects planned within the study area. The TxDOT Project Tracker indicates that there are eight roadway projects in Williamson County which are located within the study area. The projects include: roadway widening, intersection improvements, frontage roads, new roadway lanes, resurface and repairing roadways (TxDOT 2014). LCRA staff also met with TxDOT personnel to gather information about planned future roadway projects within the study area, including FM 2243 (Leander Road), Hero Way, FM 1431 (Whitestone) and FM 3406 (Old Settler s Boulevard). The cities of Georgetown, Leander, Round Rock, and Cedar Park and Williamson County provided information regarding the future roadway expansions and transportation plans. The information provided included the future roadway expansion of Arterial H to Sam Bass Road (CR 175) and FM 2243 (Leander Road) to I-35 that provided potential paralleling opportunities. Also provided was information regarding future roadway plans for the roadway expansion of Hero Way to FM 2243 that provided a potential paralleling opportunity. The expansion of FM 2243 (Leander Road) to a future 6-lane divided roadway was included as part of the same overall improvement project. Although the PUCT does not typically consider future land uses, the expansions and plans for future roadways were brought to light during the study of this project and have; therefore, been included in the analysis. Two railroads were identified within the study area. The first railroad is the Georgetown Railroad running west of I-35 and oriented in a north to south direction. The second railroad is the Austin Western Railroad running south of Brushy Creek Road and oriented in an east to west direction (USDOT 2014) Aviation Facilities Air facilities reviewed included public and private airports, airstrips, airfields, and heliports. A review of the San Antonio Sectional Aeronautical Chart (FAA 2014a) and review of the FAA database (FAA HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-39

80 2014b) were used to identify FAA registered facilities. No FAA registered public or military airports or heliports were identified within the study area boundary. One private heliport was identified within the study area, Cedar Park Regional Medical Center (FAA 2014b). In addition, review of USGS topographic maps, aerial photograph interpretation, and field reconnaissance surveys were used in an attempt to identify private airports and airstrips within the study area. Two private airports, Breakaway Park Airport (located in the southwest portion of the study area in a Fly-In Community named Breakaway Park) and Tri-Modal Air Park (located in the northeast portion of the study area on Texas Crushed Stone property), were identified within the study area boundary (FAA 2014b). Locations of the airports and heliport can be found on 4-27 and 5-1, and the distances from each route centerline is presented in Tables 5-4 through Communication Towers Review of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) database indicated that no AM radio transmitters are located within the study area (FCC 2014). The FCC also indicated that there are 17 FM radio transmitters/microwave towers/other electronic installations located within the study area (FCC 2014). These towers are scattered throughout the study area. Locations of the identified communication towers can be found on 4-27 and 5-1, and the distances from each route centerline is presented in Tables 5-4 through Parks and Recreation Areas The PUCT Standard Application for a CCN requires reporting of parks and recreational areas owned by a governmental body or an organized group, club, or church. Federal and state databases and county/local maps were reviewed to identify any parks and/or recreational areas within the study area. Field reconnaissance surveys were also conducted to identify any additional park or recreational areas. National/State/County/Local Parks No national or state parks were identified within the study area. (NPS 2013) (TPWD 2014a). There are two county parks identified within the study area. The Champion Park is located on Brushy Creek Road and offers a covered play area, splash pad, climbing boulders, picnic areas, walking trail, fishing area, scenic bridge and restrooms. The Southwestern Williamson County Regional Park is located HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-40

81 on CR 175 (Sam Bass Road) and offers soccer fields, softball fields, a football field, a track, tennis courts, basketball courts, a playground, and a miniature train. A portion of Brushy Creek Regional Trail located south of Brushy Creek Road is also within the study area and offers 6.75 miles of trail along Brushy Creek with extensive landscaping and scenic views (Williamson County 2009). Local park and recreation areas identified within the study area include: Behrens Ranch Park/Greenbelt is located on West Old Settlers Blvd. and offers an undeveloped wooded area. Brushy Creek Lake Park is located on Brushy Creek Road and offers bocce courts, fishing, pavilion, picnic area, playground and restrooms. Garey Park is located on FM 2243 and currently offers an undeveloped wooded area. The 525- acre ranch was given to the City of Georgetown and will be developed into a park with an equestrian center, public forum/amphitheater and playscape. Lakewood Park is located west of Ronald Reagan Blvd. and offers a lake. Lyndoch Park is located on FM 2243 and offers a cleared open space. Mayfield Park is located on FM 1431 and offers an undeveloped wooded area. Oak Springs Park is located on Pearl Cove and offers an undeveloped wooded area. Ranch Trails Park is located on Ranch Trail and offers a basketball court and a pavilion. Sam Bass Trail is located along West Old Settlers Blvd. and offers a 1.08 mile trail. Shirley MacDonald Park/Creekside Park is located along Brushy Creek Road and offers undeveloped wooded area. Silverado Springs Park North is located on West Parmer Lane and offers an undeveloped wooded area. Silverado Springs Park South is located on Brushy Creek Road and offers a walking trail. Veterans Memorial Park is located along Park Valley Drive and offers a playground and flags representing each of the armed forces. Williamson County Open Spaces are located in several areas within the study area and offer undeveloped, cleared areas. Woods Park is located at the end of Wood Blvd. and is an undeveloped wooded area. Artie L. Henry Middle School is located on North Vista Ridge Blvd. and offers a football field and track. Brushy Creek Elementary School is located on Great Oaks Drive and offers a basketball court, playground, and walking track. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-41

82 Cactus Ranch Elementary School is located on Salorn Drive and offers a basketball court, playground, and walking track. Chandler Oaks Elementary School is located on Stone Oak Drive and offers a basketball court, playground and walking track. Fern Bluff Elementary School is located on Wyoming Springs Drive and offers a basketball court, playground, and walking track. Florence W. Stiles Middle School is located on Barley Road and offers a football field and track. James Garland Walsh Ranch Middle School is located on Walsh Ranch Blvd. and offers a football field, track and basketball courts. James N. Tippit Middle School is located on FM 2243 and offers a football field, track, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Knox Wiley Middle School is located on Raider Way and offers a football field and track. Old Town Elementary School is located on West Old Settler s Blvd. and offers a basketball court, playground, and walking track. Parkside Elementary School is located on Garner Park Drive and offers a playground and walking track. Reagan Elementary School is located on East Park Street and offers a playground. Rouse High School is located on Raider Way and offers a football field, track, tennis courts and baseball fields. Vista Ridge High School is located on North Vista Ridge Blvd. and offers a football stadium, football field, track, tennis courts and baseball fields. Behrens Ranch Home Owners Association (HOA) Park is located within the neighborhood of Behrens Ranch and offers two pools, pool house, and playground. Behrens Ranch Greenbelt is located within the Behrens Ranch neighborhood and offers a 1.53 mile trail. Bent Tree HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Bent Tree and offers a pool, pool house, playground, and basketball court. Brightwater Park/Greenbelt is located along Brightwater Blvd. and offers a playground and walking trail. Brushy Creek Greenbelt Creekbend is located west of the Creek Bend neighborhood and offers an undeveloped wooded area. Brushy Creek Greenbelt Sonoma has several locations within the Walsh Ranch neighborhood and offers undeveloped cleared areas. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-42

83 Brushy Creek North HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Brushy Creek North and offers a playground and walking trail. Brushy Creek HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Brushy Creek and offers a pool, pool house, tennis courts, and basketball court. Caballo Ranch HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Caballo Ranch and offers a pool, pool house, splash pad, and playground. Cheatham Park is located within the neighborhood of Fern Bluff and offers two playgrounds and a walking trail. Cold Springs HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Cold Springs and offers a pool, pool house, splash pad, playground, and basketball court. Creekview HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Creek View and offers two pools, two pool houses, and two playgrounds. Fern Bluff HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Fern Bluff and offers a playground, sand volleyball court, tennis courts, basketball court, and a walking trail. Forest Oaks HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Forest Oaks and offers a pool, pool house, and playground. Friendly Oaks Park is located within the neighborhood of Fern Bluff and offers a playground and walking trail. Great Oaks Trail is located within the Brushy Creek North neighborhood and offers a 0.55 mile trail. Hidden Glenn HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Hidden Glenn and offers a pool, pool house, and playground. Hidden Glenn HOA Greenbelt is located within the neighborhood of Hidden Glenn and offers a 0.39 mile walking trail. Mayfield Ranch Greenbelt and Open Space have several locations within the Mayfield Ranch neighborhood and offers undeveloped cleared areas. Mayfield Ranch HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Mayfield Ranch and offers a pool, pool house, splash pad, and playground. Oak Brook HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Oak Brook and offers a pool, pool house, playground, tennis court, and basketball court. Oak Brook Trail/Olsen Meadows is located within the neighborhood of Oak Brook and offers a walking trail. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-43

84 Oaklands Greenbelt is located within the Oak Creek neighborhood and offers undeveloped cleared areas. Oaklands HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Oak Creek and offers a pool, pool house, playground, and tennis courts. Oak Hallow HOA Greenbelt is located within the neighborhood of Oak Hallow and offers a walking trail. Parkside HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Parkside and offers a pool, pool house, and splash pad. Preserve at Stone Oak Open Space has several locations within the Preserve at Stone Oak neighborhood and offers undeveloped cleared areas. Preserve at Stone Oak HOA Pool is located within the neighborhood of Preserve at Stone Oak and offers a pool, pool house, splash pad, and playground. Ranch at Brushy Creek HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Ranch Trails and offers a pool, pool house, playground, sand volleyball court, basketball, and walking trail. River Ridge HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of River Ridge and offers a pool, pool house, and playground. Sarita Valley HOA Greenbelt is located within the neighborhood of Sarita Valley and offers a multi-use trail. Sarita Valley HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Sarita Valley and offers a pool. Sendero Springs HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Sendero Springs and offers a pool, pool house, playground, and basketball court. Sendero Springs Greenbelt is located within the neighborhood of Sendero Springs and offers a 0.34 mile and 0.43 mile trail. Somerset HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Somerset and offers a playground. Stone Canyon HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Stone Canyon and offers a pool, pool house, playground, and a walking trail. Stone Oak Greenbelt is located within the Stone Oak neighborhood and offers undeveloped cleared areas. Stone Oak HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Stone Oak and offers a pool, pool house, and playground. Stone Oak Trail Corridor has several locations within the Stone Oak neighborhood and offers walking trails. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-44

85 The Reserve at Brushy Creek HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of The Reserve at Brushy Creek and offers a pool, pool house, and playground. The Woods HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of The Woods and offers a pool, pool house, and playground. Top Rock Park is located within the neighborhood of Stone Oak and offers a playground. Vista Oaks Greenbelt is located within the Vista Oaks neighborhood and offers a covered pavilion for mail boxes. Vista Oaks HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Vista Oaks and offers a pool, pool house, playground, tennis court, and basketball court. Walsh Ranch HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Walsh Ranch and offers a pool, pool house, and playground. Walsh Hills Trails HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Walsh Trails and offers a pool, and pool house. Waters Edge HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Waters Edge and offers a pool, pool house, and playground. Wood Glenn Greenbelt has several locations within the Wood Glen neighborhood and offers undeveloped cleared areas, some with walking trails. Wood Glenn HOA Park is located within the neighborhood of Wood Glenn and offers a pool, pool house, tennis court and basketball court. Wildlife Viewing Trails - Review of the TPWD Great Texas Wildlife Trails Heart of Texas East indicates that there is one driving loop, Balcones Loop, and one wildlife viewing site, Creekland Park and Brushy Creek Regional Trail, within the study area (TPWD 2014b). Additional recreational activities such as hunting and fishing may occur on private properties throughout the study area, but are not considered to be open to the general public. Locations of the identified parks and recreation areas can be found on 4-27 and 5-1, and the distances from each route centerline is presented in Tables 5-4 through HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-45

86 2.9 Socioeconomics This section presents a summary of economic and demographic characteristics for Williamson County and describes the socioeconomic environment of the study area. Literature sources reviewed include publications of the United States Bureau of the Census (USBOC) and the Texas State Data Center (TxSDC) Population Trends Williamson County experienced a population increase between 2000 and 2010 of 69%. By comparison, population at the state level increased by nearly 21% during the same decade (USBOC 2000 and 2010). According to TxSDC growth projections, Williamson County is projected to experience continued significant population growth during the next 30 years. The population increases for the next three decades are projected to be 27%, 25%, and 24%, respectively. By comparison, the population of Texas is expected to experience population increases of 15%, 13%, and 12% over the next three decades, respectively (TxSDC 2014). Table 2-10 presents the past population trends and projections for Williamson County and for the state of Texas. TABLE 2-10 POPULATION TRENDS STATE/COUNTY PAST PROJECTED Texas 20,851,820 25,145,561 28,813,280 32,680,231 36,550,578 Williamson County 249, , , , ,466 Source: USBOC 2000 and 2010; TxSDC Employment The civilian labor force (CLF) in Williamson County increased from 2000 to 2012 with the corresponding population growth by 71% (94,658 people). By comparison, the CLF at the state level grew by 26% (2,570,805 people) over the same time period (USBOC 2000 and 2012). Between 2000 and 2012, Williamson County experienced an increase in its unemployment rate from 2.8% in 2000 to 7.3% in By comparison, the state of Texas also experienced a small increase in the unemployment rate over the same time period. The state s unemployment rate increased from 6.1% in 2000 to 7.7% in 2012 (USBOC 2000 and 2012). Table 2-11 presents the CLF, employment, and unemployment data for Williamson County and the state of Texas for the years 2000 and HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-46

87 TABLE 2-11 LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT STATE/COUNTY Texas Civilian Labor Force 9,830,559 12,401,364 Employment 9,234,372 11,440,955 Unemployment 596, ,408 Unemployment Rate 6.1% 7.7% Williamson County Civilian Labor Force 132, ,553 Employment 129, ,928 Unemployment 3,703 16,625 Unemployment Rate 2.8% 7.3% Source: USBOC 2000 and Leading Economic Sectors The major occupations in Williamson County in 2012 are listed under the category of management, business, science, and arts occupations, followed by the category of sales and office occupations (USBOC 2012). Table 2-12 presents the number of persons employed in each occupation category during 2012 in Williamson County. TABLE 2-12 OCCUPATIONS IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY OCCUPATION WILLIAMSON COUNTY Management, business, science, and arts occupations 94,238 Service occupations 29,454 Sales and office occupations 54,890 Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 15,832 Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 16,514 Source: USBOC In 2000, the industry group employing the most people in Williamson County was manufacturing and in 2012 it was educational services, health care, and social assistance. The industry group that experienced the most growth from 2000 to 2012 was arts, entertainment, and recreation and accommodations and food services, which experienced a 147% increase (9,416 people) (USBOC 2012). Table 2-13 presents the number of persons employed in each of the industries in Williamson County for the years 2000 and HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-47

88 TABLE 2-13 INDUSTRIES IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY INDUSTRY GROUP WILLIAMSON COUNTY Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 1,382 1,943 Construction 9,850 13,661 Manufacturing 24,086 24,501 Wholesale trade 3,875 5,623 Retail trade 15,841 27,642 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 4,143 7,204 Information 3,974 5,024 Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 10,478 15,872 Professional, scientific and management, and administrative and waste management services 13,503 28,558 Educational services, and health care and social assistance 20,865 42,621 Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 6,395 15,811 Other services, except public administration 6,145 9,593 Public administration 8,655 12,875 Source: USBOC 2000 and Aesthetics Section (c)(4)(C) of the Texas Utilities Code incorporates aesthetics as a consideration when evaluating proposed electric transmission facilities. There are currently no formal guidelines provided for managing visual resources on private, state, or county owned lands. For the purposes of this study, the term aesthetics is defined by POWER to accommodate the subjective perception of natural beauty in a landscape and measure an area s scenic qualities. The visual analysis was conducted by describing the regional setting and determining a viewer s sensitivity. Related literature, aerial photograph interpretation, and reconnaissance surveys were used to describe the regional setting and to determine the landscape character types for the area. Consideration of the visual environment includes a determination of aesthetic values (where the major potential effect of a project on the resource is considered visual) and recreational values (where the location of a transmission line could potentially affect the scenic enjoyment of the area) that would help define a viewer s sensitivity. POWER considered the following aesthetic criteria that combine to give an area its aesthetic identity: HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-48

89 Topographical variation (hills, valleys, etc.). Prominence of water in the landscape (rivers, lakes, etc.). Vegetation variety (woodland, meadows). Diversity of scenic elements. Degree of human development or alteration. Overall uniqueness of the scenic environment compared with the larger region. The study area is primarily urban with a few areas of undeveloped or agricultural land scattered throughout. The predominant land use within the study area is residential and commercial development as well as a limestone quarry. The majority of the study area has been impacted by land improvements associated with agriculture, residential/commercial structures, a stone quarry, utility corridors, and roadways. Overall, the study area viewscape consists of urban development with gently rolling hills associated with Brushy Creek. No known designated views or designated national or state scenic roads or highways were identified within the study area. The study area is located within the 19-county Texas Hill Country Trail Region. The primary trail runs along I-35 within the study area, and sites of interest include Inner Space Caverns (THC 2014a). A review of the National Park Service (NPS) website did not indicate any Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Parks, National Monuments, National Historic Sites, National Historic Landmarks, National Historic Trails, or National Battlefields within the study area (NWSRS 2014; NPS 2013, 2014a and 2014b). Based on these criteria, the study area exhibits a moderate degree of aesthetic quality for the region. The majority of the study area maintains the feel of an urban community. Although some portions of the study area might be visually appealing such as the Brushy Creek Trail which holds a shared appreciation in the area by the community; overall, the aesthetic quality of the study area is not distinguishable from that of other adjacent areas within the region. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-49

90 2.11 Cultural Resources Section (c)(4)(A-D) of the Texas Utilities Code incorporates historical values as a consideration when evaluating proposed electric transmission facilities. The PUCT s Standard Application for a CCN further stipulates that known historical sites within 1,000 feet of an alternative route should be listed, mapped, and their distance from the centerline of the alternative route documented in the application filed for consideration. Archeological sites within 1,000 feet of a route should be listed and their distance from the centerline documented, but they need not be shown on maps for the protection of the site. Sources consulted to identify known sites (national, state, or local commission) should also be listed. The THC is the state agency responsible for preservation of the state s cultural resources. The THC, working in conjunction with the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL), maintains records of previously recorded cultural resources as well as records of previous field investigations. Information from the THC s restricted-access Texas Archeological Sites Atlas (TASA) and Texas Historical Sites Atlas (THSA) was acquired in addition to GIS shapefiles acquired from TARL to identify and map locations of previously recorded cultural (archeological and historical) resources within the study area. TxDOT s historic bridges database was also reviewed for bridges that are listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). At the national level, NPS websites and data centers were reviewed to identify locations and boundaries for nationally designated historic landmarks, trails and battlefield monuments. Together, archeological and historical sites are often referred to as cultural resources. Under the NPS standardized definitions, cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. For this study, cultural resources have been divided into three major categories: archeological resources, historical resources, and cemeteries. These three categories correlate with the organization of cultural resource records maintained by the THC and TARL. Archeological resources are sites where human activity has measurably altered the earth and left deposits of physical remains (e.g., burned rock middens, stone tools, petroglyphs, house foundations, trails, trash scatters). Most archeological sites in Texas are Native American (prehistoric), Euro/African American, or Hispanic in origin. Much of the study area has not been studied intensively for archeological resources. Therefore, high probability areas for prehistoric and historic archeological resources were determined based on proximity to perennial water sources, certain topographic features, and the presence of structures on historic maps in currently undeveloped areas. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-50

91 Historical resources include standing buildings or structures (e.g., houses, barns and out buildings), and may also include dams, canals, bridges, transportation routes, silos, etc., and districts that are nonarcheological in nature and generally more than 50 years of age. Cemeteries are locations of intentional human interment and may include large public burial grounds with multiple individuals, small family plots with only a few burials, or individual grave sites. In some instances, cemeteries may be designated as Historic Texas Cemeteries (HTCs) by the THC or recognized with an Official Texas Historical Marker (OTHM). Cemeteries may also be documented as part of the THC Record-Investigate-Protect (RIP) Program Cultural Background Prehistory The study area is located within the Central and Southern Cultural Resource Planning Region as delineated by the THC (Mercado-Allinger et al. 1996) and shown in Figure 2-5. The project area is located in central Texas within the Balcones ecotone, a transitional region between the Blackland Prairie and coastal plains to the east and limestone uplands to the west. The intermingling ecological regions of the Blackland Prairies and the Edwards Plateau offered diverse resources that were important to both prehistoric and historic populations (Collins 2002). The prehistoric occupation of central Texas is most often divided into three broad archeological periods spanning at least the last 12,000 years, based primarily on perceived technological changes evident in the archeological record often correlated with broad changes in the physical and cultural environment. These periods include the Paleoindian period, beginning around 12,000 years ago. Following the Paleoindian period is the long-lasting Archaic period, which comprises almost two-thirds of the known prehistoric occupation of central Texas from about 8,800 years ago until 1,250 years ago. The final period before Euroamerican contact is the Late Prehistoric period, which ended with the first Spanish expedition into the region in the mid-1500s. All dates pertaining to the prehistory of the study area are given as approximate years Before Present (B.P.) or years before The following discussion focuses primarily on the cultural chronology of central Texas as presented by Collins (2004). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-51

92 PLAINS TRANS-PECOS STUDY AREA EASTERN CENTRAL & SOUTHERN ² Miles Legend Cultural Resource Planning Region Boundary County Boundary Figure 2-5 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA IN RELATION TO THE CULTURAL RESOURCE PLANNING REGIONS OF TEXAS Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project Source: Mercado- Allinger et. al., 1996

93 Paleoindian Period (12,000-8,800 B.P.) The Paleoindian period in central Texas is divided into the early and late sub-periods. The early Paleoindian period, also called the Clovis cultural horizon, began about 12,000 years ago and is the earliest known cultural sequence in the region. Corresponding with the waning years of the Pleistocene era, the early Paleoindian period was characterized by a comparatively cooler, wetter environment. Despite the popular misconception that these early populations were primarily hunters, evidence from the Gault Site in central Texas suggests that their diet was more generalized (Collins 2002). Archeological evidence indicates that these early hunting and gathering populations subsisted on a well-diversified resource base that included not only the last of the mammoth, but also smaller animals, fish, and a variety of reptiles. Site types dating to this period are varied and include kill, quarry/stone-working, cache, camp, ritual, and burial sites (e.g., Wilson-Leonard and Pavo Blanco sites, both located within the study area). Artifacts associated with early Paleoindian period sites include large fluted Clovis spear points, bone and ivory points, and stone bolas. The hallmark Clovis spear points of the early Paleoindian period gave way to the shorter, fluted Folsom points and a greater variety of smaller dart points. Many of the artifacts were made from exotic stone suggesting a highly mobile, wide-ranging hunting and gathering subsistence strategy. When the Pleistocene era came to an end around 10,900 years ago and the mammoth populations had all but disappeared, prehistoric populations began to focus their hunting efforts on bison, one of the hallmarks of the transition for the early to the late Paleoindian period (Collins 2004). Early Paleoindian materials are contemporary with Pleistocene megafauna, whereas late Paleoindian materials are contemporary with early Holocene fauna (Collins 1998). The late Paleoindian period in central Texas extended from about 10,900 to 8,800 years ago. Although the subsistence base now emphasized large game over the more diversified resource base of the early period, small animals, fish, reptiles, and plants remained important food sources. Small groups continued to hunt, gather plants, and obtain raw material for stone tool manufacture over a broad territory. Earlier Clovis and Folsom projectile point types are replaced by a variety of unfluted lanceolate types known as Angostura, Golondrina, and St. Mary s Hall, and early stemmed types such as Wilson (Bousman et al. 2004). Ritualistic and intentional burial practices also continued from the early to the late period as evidenced by interments in Williamson and McLennan counties that contained both utilitarian and ornamental objects (Collins 2004). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-53

94 Archaic Period (8,800-1,250 B.P.) The Archaic period is subdivided into Early (ca. 8,800 to 6,000 years ago), Middle (ca. 6,000 to 4,000 years ago), and Late (4,000 to 1,250 years ago) sub-periods. The transition from the late Paleoindian period to the Early Archaic is gradual, but has generally been characterized as a time when broad territorial hunting and gathering became more localized and the artifact assemblages began to show greater diversity. Lanceolate points typical of the Paleoindian period are replaced by notched and stemmed points in the Early Archaic. Other hallmarks of the Early Archaic include the greater use of groundstone tools and the widespread occurrence of heat-altered rocks, which may have functioned as hearths, ovens, or other features. Copious amounts of heat-altered rocks are characteristic of Central Texas Archaic sites (Collins 1998). Clear Fork and Guadalupe tools, possibly woodworking tools, and grooved and notched stones, possibly net sinkers, appear during the Early Archaic (Black and McGraw 1985; Collins 2004). Although there is a paucity of subsistence data for the Early Archaic in central Texas, there is some evidence that deer, various small animals, fish, and roasted plant bulbs were part of the diet. Hester (1989) suggests that Early Archaic inhabitants developed specialized adaptations to the hunting of whitetailed deer and gathering of acorns, in addition to other abundant regional resources. The archeological record suggests that bison were scarce during this sub-period (Collins 1995; 2004). During the early portion of the Middle Archaic, bison hunting is evident in the archeological record (Collins 2004). Earlier Middle Archaic projectile point styles, such as Bell, Andice, and Calf Creek are thin, triangular forms that represent a shift in lithic technology from the Early Archaic point types. These types could serve equally well as knives or the tips of lances, spears, or darts, and are viewed as part of an adaptation to a more mesic environment and the return of bison in the region (Black and McGraw 1985; Collins 2004). By around 5,000 years ago, bison are once again scarce in the archeological record in central Texas, concomitant with the onset of the driest conditions faced by humans in the region. Large burned rock features (hearths and rock ovens) of the early part of the Middle Archaic are replaced in the later Middle Archaic by smaller burned rock middens. Johnson and Goode (1994:26) suggest the middens represent increased reliance on xerophytes such as sotol. The spread of xerophytes during the Middle Archaic is consistent with Collins (1995) and Johnson (1995), both of whom see a period of drying at the end of the this period. Thoms (2008, 2009) posited that a marked increase in the use of hot-rock ovens is an HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-54

95 expected signature of land-use intensification, which would be expected during a prolonged nearly catastrophic drought such as seen in the later Middle Archaic (Collins 1995). The onset of the Late Archaic occurred when central Texas was at its driest, around 4,000 years ago. Despite the continuation of Middle Archaic subsistence strategies, a proliferation of new projectile point types is characteristic of the beginning of the Late Archaic, including Bulverde and Pedernales points. Johnson and Goode (1994) include Lange, Marshall, Montell and Castroville points in their Late Archaic I sub-period, which coincides with a hotter, dryer climate. During the Late Archaic I sub-period, burned rock middens continued to be a common site type, even increasing in frequency in the eastern region of central Texas (Collins 2004). As the desert plants were replaced by plants adapted to a moister climate around 3,500 to 2,500 years ago the number of burned rock middens in east-central Texas decreased but did not entirely disappear. Johnson and Goode s (1994) Late Archaic II sub-period coincides with this more mesic climate. Westcentral Texas remained dry and burned rock middens continued to be used to process the plant foods at the same intensity as during the Middle Archaic. Trade between central and coastal groups increased. The end of the Late Archaic period appears to be characterized by a broadening in the diet base, perhaps in response to climatic stressors or increasing population density. Projectile points diagnostic of the latter part of the Late Archaic include Darl, Ensor, Frio, and Mahomet types (Collins 1995, 2004). Late Prehistoric Period (1, B.P.) The onset of the Late Prehistoric period has been arbitrarily set by some archeologists around 1,250 years ago, but may have started as recently as 800 years ago. Little changed in subsistence patterns during the Late Prehistoric; the hunting and gathering strategy continued as did the processing of plants in burned rock middens. The most notable shift from the Late Archaic to the Late Prehistoric was the introduction and subsequent prevalence of arrow points over dart and spear points in the archeological record. There also appears to be an increase in intergroup violence, possibly as a result of increasing population pressure, as evidenced by numerous skeletal remains exhibiting fatal arrow wounds. Pottery begins to appear in the archeological assemblages dating to the latter part of the Late Prehistoric period (Collins 2004). The Late Prehistoric is often divided into an earlier Austin phase, and later Toyah phase in central Texas (Black 1989; Story 1990; Arnn 2012). The Austin phase occurred between approximately 1,250 years ago and 800 years ago, and is marked by the replacement of dart points with arrowpoints such as the widely HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-55

96 distributed Scallorn point, the Edwards point on the southern edge of the Edwards plateau, and other regional arrow points (Arnn 2012). Aside from the adoption of the bow and arrow, there appears to be little difference between economy of the Austin phase and the preceding period. The end of the Austin phase is generally marked by the appearance of ceramics throughout much of Texas and the replacement of Scallorn points with Perdiz points (Arnn 2012). The co-occurrence of ceramics and Perdiz points with Scallorn points at some sites, however, suggests a continuity between the Austin and Toyah phases (Arnn 2012). The Perdiz point is part of an assemblage commonly thought to represent an adaption to the return of bison to central Texas in numbers not seen since the Early Archaic. Arnn (2012: ) suggests the ubiquity of the Perdiz point and its distribution, which approximates the distribution of white-tailed deer in Texas, call into question the long-held association between the Toyah and bison. Mauldin et al. (2013) suggest that carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses of Toyah-aged hunter gatherers at the Coleman site indicate the population did not rely on bison, but on animals that fed on trees, shrubs, and temperate grasses, such as deer (Mauldin et al. 2013). Shortly before the arrival of Europeans to Central Texas, native groups were living in small band-sized encampments and large, diffuse camps comprised of people with multiple tribal affiliations. Hunting focused on bison, but also included deer and antelope. Group mobility patterns were governed by the seasonal movements of the native animals and availability of resources, and later by the newly introduced horse. The presence of Caddoan ceramics at several central Texas sites indicates a long pattern of interaction with groups indigenous to the northern part of central Texas (Collins 2004). Historic Period (ca years ago) The Spanish were the first Europeans to explore the area in the late seventeenth century. Following contact with Europeans, cultural changes for local groups resulted primarily from pressure from equestrian groups from the north and the introduction of European material culture. After 1700, many traditional stone, bone, and wooden items were replaced by European metal, glass, cloth articles, and guns. Although their lifeways seemed improved by some European innovations, the spread of disease introduced by the Europeans severely decreased native populations. This hardship was coupled with warfare with the Lipan Apache and Comanche (Carlisle 2016a). The use of horses and firearms brought about an intensified competition for resources (Hämäläinen 2003), and warfare with the Apache and HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-56

97 Comanche was especially brutal, as both groups were amongst the most successful native groups in equestrian adaption (Carlisle 2016b). The two tribes would become the largest threat to European settlement in Texas s west and central regions. In the mid-eighteenth century, the Franciscan College of Santa Cruz de Querétaro developed the San Xavier missions under the urging of the Mayaya, Deadose, Ervipiame, and Yojiane Tonkawan tribes seeking protection from the Lipan Apache (Supplee 2016; Campbell 2016). The Apache, early adaptors of the reintroduction of horses onto the plains, displaced the Tonkawa from as far north as central Kansas to near the Red River in north central Texas in the early 1700s (Prikryl 2001). By the late 1760s, the Tonkawa were found between the Trinity and Brazos Rivers, absorbing smaller local groups in need of a common defense against the Apache, and, by the early 1800s, they were between the Colorado and San Antonio Rivers. The missions lasted only a few years due to constant Lipan Apache attacks, drought, and plague, and were subsequently moved to the San Marcos River. Over the latter half of the eighteenth century, many of the local native tribes dispersed and merged with other bands in east Texas and along the Gulf coast (Odintz 2016; Carlisle 2016b). Today, the only Native American group who has claimed Central Texas ancestry is the Tonkawa (Black 1989:33). In 1822, Robert Leftwich and 70 investors from Nashville sought to obtain a colonization grant from Mexico. After exhausting the funds from the other investors, Leftwich petitioned for a contract in his name, and was granted permission to settle 800 families in northern central Texas (McLean 2016a). Settlement of the area was stymied by the Law of April 6, 1830 and legal issues with Stephen F. Austin, who obtained permission to settle the same land. In 1834, the contract to settle the land was awarded to Sterling Clack Robertson, after which it was known as the Robertson s colony (McLean 2016b). The Texas Revolution prevented Robertson from introducing his quota of 800 families. During the 1800s, much of the early western expansion was kept in check by frequent Indian raids. The route along Brushy Creek and the San Gabriel River was named the Camino de Arriba. As Anglo settlement began in the 1830s, several forts and military posts were established along Brushy Creek in an attempt quell Indian raids (Odintz 2016). Kenney s Fort, for example, was built in 1838 by Dr. Thomas Kenney and accompanying settlers at the headwaters of Brushy Creek. Over a period of a few years, they were all killed by Comanche raids (Scarbrough 2016a). The Webster Massacre is a local example of the dangers of early settlement. Approximately 13 settlers were headed to Burnet County in the summer of 1838 when they were attacked by a band of Comanche HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-57

98 Indians. All but three of the travelers were killed during the attack (Abott 2016). The remains of those killed in the massacre are interred in the study area in the Davis Cemetery. In 1842, Governor Sam Houston advised settlers to pull back due to Indian attacks, after which many settlers abandoned their farms (Odintz 2016). After the annexation of Texas into the United States in 1845, a significant influx of white settlers migrated into the study area, especially along Brushy Creek and San Gabriel River. The migration pushed the native populations out, easing Indian raids (Neu 2016). Small communities began establishing themselves during the mid-nineteenth century. The town of Brushy Creek, later renamed Round Rock, would become one of the larger cities to develop at the southern edge of Williamson County (Scarbrough 2016b). Williamson County was created in 1848 from portions of Milam County (Scarbrough 2016c), and Georgetown chosen as the county seat. Williamson County was originally to be named San Gabriel County, but was instead named after Robert McAlpin Williamson, also known as Three-Legged Willie, a Texas statesmen and judge (Brinkman 2016). By 1860, much of the land in Williamson County had been improved for agriculture, and the population had grown to over 3,000 whites and nearly 900 slaves (Odintz 2016). The fertile Blackland prairies on the eastern portion of the county grew wheat and corn, and cattle and sheep also contributed to the economy (Odintz 2016). While the cotton culture that dominated much of the south was largely absent in the area, the political and ideological divisions that existed between it and northern ideals came to a head at the outbreak of the Civil War. Those that supported the Confederate army joined its cause while those that opposed secession fled north or to Mexico, or joined the Union army. Those that supported the Union and remained in the area experienced persecution (Odintz 2016). After the Civil War, the value of land and livestock in Williamson County plummeted to nearly half its pre-war value (Odintz 2016). The faltering economy, based primarily on cattle and an expanding cotton industry was stimulated by the arrival of the International-Great Northern Railroad in 1876, connecting farmers and ranchers to distant markets (Odintz 2016; Werner 2016). The cattle and sheep industry declined slightly in the early twentieth century before rising to reach its pre- Civil War levels in the 1930s. Cotton, an unpopular crop before the Civil War, surpassed other crops. In 1900, Williamson County produced more bales of cotton than any other county in Texas, except Ellis County (Odintz 2016). By the late 1920s, the boll weevil, soils depletion, and overproduction made cotton HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-58

99 farming less profitable, a situation that was worsened by the Great Depression. As a result, farmers shifted from cotton to less intensive wheat, sorghum, and corn crops, as well as livestock (Odintz 2016). From the Civil War through the twentieth century, Williamson County saw a diversification in religion and cultures with significant migrations of Scandinavians, Germans, Czechs, Wends, and Austrians in the 1880s and 1890s, and Hispanics in the early 1900s (Odintz 2016). African American populations declined after the Civil War. Acts of segregation and the placement of African Americans in inferior housing and education facilities were common throughout Texas and other Southern states until the 1960s, when federal desegregation programs brought about some improvements. The African-American population in Williamson County continued to decline into the 1980s, while other ethnic populations continued to grow and diversify throughout the twentieth century (Odintz 2016) Literature and Records Review Historical and archeological data from TARL, TASA, and THSA were reviewed online to identify the locations and descriptions of previously documented archeological sites, State Antiquities Landmarks, NRHP properties, OTHMs, and previously conducted cultural resource investigations within the study area boundary. At the national level, NPS websites and data centers were reviewed to identify locations and boundaries for nationally designated historic landmarks, trails, battlefield monuments, and NRHPlisted properties. The results of the review are summarized in Table TABLE 2-14 RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA NRHP-LISTED RECORDED STATE OR DETERMINED ARCHEOLOGICAL ARCHEOLOGICAL ELIGIBLE SITES LANDMARKS PROPERTIES CEMETERIES HTC OTHM Source: THC (2016a, 2016b). The review of the THSA, TASA (THC 2016a, 2016b), and TARL data indicates that 132 archeological sites have been previously recorded in the study area (see Table 2-15). Of these, 102 are prehistoric in age, 14 are historic, 11 contain historic and prehistoric components, and five are unidentified with no information available on TASA. According to the TASA, 54 sites were determined by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP. Seven sites (41WM235, 41WM559, 41WM731, 41WM964, 41WM1006, 41WM1033, 41WM1034) are determined by the SHPO to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, two of which (41WM235 and 41WM731) are designated as State HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-59

100 Antiquities Landmarks (SAL). Portions of 41WM234 have been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. Site 41WM235, commonly referred to as the Wilson-Leonard site, is located within the Brushy Creek valley in the southern end of the study area. Stratified deposits over 19 feet deep contain a rich archeological history spanning nearly 13,500 years, containing evidence for every prehistoric time period in Texas. Information concerning human ecology, culture chronology, and paleoenvironmental changes has been collected at the site (Collins 1998). Of the most notable recorded finds at the site is an 11,000 year old burial of a young woman, possibly in her late teens to early twenties. She is recorded as the oldest and most complete human burial in North America. Possible pre-clovis cultural material is also among the notable finds. Pre-Clovis materials are particularly important because they could represent a culture that occupied the area earlier than originally theorized, pushing back the timeframe of human occupation of Central Texas. Site 41WM731, also known as the Brushy Creek site is a multicomponent site located in the southeastern corner of the study area. The site is represented by an historic limestone house structure, associated material and prehistoric burned rock middens and associated lithic debitage. Thousands of prehistoric artifacts are reported to be present at the site, as well as burned rock middens. The Brushy Creek site has been looted, but is reported as still being intact. Historic material is also present but is less prominent, consisting of glass, metal, pottery, and tile stoneware, that might represent the first independent, successful black-owned enterprise in the region. Site 41WM559, named Pavo Blanco, is a large, multicomponent prehistoric site located south of Brushy creek along an unnamed tributary. Cultural material date from Paleoindian to the Late Prehistoric periods and range from thousands pieces of debitage, nearly a hundred projectile points, bifaces, and unifaces, and several burned rock middens. Site 41WM964, also known as the Krienke Site, is located only 165 meters to the north of 41WM235 and is considered to be associated with the Wilson Leonard site. Deposits are also deeply stratified, containing a stone lined pit oven, debitage, mussel valves, a biface fragment, and a Lange dart point. Site 41WM1006, known as the Davis Cemetery, holds the remains of the Webster Massacre. The cemetery earliest grave dates to Wagon parts from Webster settlement group are reported to be buried with the interred individuals. Site 41WM1033 is a concrete cattle dip that represents a component of early twentieth century cattle ranching. Site 41WM1034 is a nineteenth to twentieth century farmstead. A house site with chimney falls, foundations, stoned-lined well, animal pens, and outbuildings are among the contributing resources to the site. Artifactual material consists of square HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-60

101 and wire nails, glass, ceramics, metal buttons, and other small domestic items. Agricultural items are also present such as a horse bridle, and possible saddle buckle fragments. A projectile point fragment and silicified wood pestle were also recorded. Seven cemeteries and seven OTHMS are recorded in the study area. As shown in Table 2-16, one of the cemeteries, the Champion Cemetery, is a designated Historic Texas Cemetery. Three additional cemeteries bear OTHMs, including the Davis Cemetery, in which the victims of the Webster Massacre are buried, and the Old Round Rock Cemetery, which includes a slave burial ground. Additional OTHMs in the study area, shown in Table 2-17, commemorate the arrival of the railroad to western Williamson County, which stimulated the economy and allowed for the movement of granite from Burnet County to Austin to construct the state capitol building, a local volunteer fire department, and a house complex that includes an 1853 building that housed a mercantile store, and the first permanent post office for Round Rock. TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM11 Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock midden 41WM15 Undetermined Prehistoric; burned rock middens, projectile points, mano, scraper, blade, debitage Additional work recommended before destroyed by highway 41WM19 Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock midden 41WM25 Undetermined Archaic and Late Prehistoric; gouges, scrapers, dart points, arrow points, ocher, blanks 41WM46 Undetermined Archaic and Late Prehistoric; burned rock middens, dart points, debitage Extensive testing recommended on recording of site 41WM143 Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock midden Site bull dozed 41WM144 Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock midden Looted 41WM145 41WM150 Ineligible within ROW* Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock midden points, scrapers, gravers, burins, burin spalls, knives, rubbing stones, bone, snails, charcoal, and a few fossils. Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage, bifaces and dart HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-61

102 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM166 41WM167 41WM229 41WM231 41WM233 41WM234 Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Ineligible within ROW* (2000); Undetermined (2007); Eligible (2008) points Historic house site; possible fireplace foundation, and stone fences. Historic one and a half story rock structure, milk house or spring house Prehistoric burned rock midden; points, blades, grinding stones, burins, scrapers Deep cavern Innerspace Caverns Lunar Landscape room; Paleoindian debitage, projectile points, charcoal, burned rock, and animal bone Prehistoric buried midden; debitage, cores Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic burned rock middens and lithics 41WM235 Wilson-Leonard Site; Eligible (1999); Paleoindian through Late Ineligible within Prehistoric stratified campsite ROW* (2006) and burial Paleoindian, Middle Archaic, 41WM236 Ineligible within and Late Archaic; dart points, ROW* fire cracked rock, Montell point, debitage 41WM251 Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock midden and possible carvings 41WM252 Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock middens 41WM255 41WM311 41WM428 Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Innerspace Caverns; Pleistocene fauna in deep cavern; bones of giant pig, ground sloth, extinct horse, jaguar, human tooth Prehistoric burned rock middens; debitage, burned rock, and dart points. Prehistoric cores, scraper, and debitage 41WM438 Undetermined Historic limestone trail marker; Testing recommended on site form Commercial development deposited deep fill over majority of site, exposed areas along creek have been looted State Antiquities Landmark Reported destroyed in 1984 Testing recommended on site form HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-62

103 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS direction to Georgetown 41WM443 Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock midden, lithic procurement site; cores, bifaces, and debitage 41WM446 Undetermined Prehistoric campsite and burned rock midden; burned rock, a mano, biface fragments, and debitage Testing recommended on site form 41WM447 Undetermined Middle to Late Archaic; debitage and burned rock, Pedernales, Ensor points, biface fragments Testing recommended on site form 41WM448 Ineligible within ROW* Archaic burned rock midden and lithic scatter; debitage and biface 41WM449 41WM451 41WM541 41WM544 41WM545 41WM549 41WM550 41WM551 Ineligible within ROW* Undetermined Ineligible within ROW* Ineligible Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock and lithic scatter; debitage Prehistoric lithic scatter; Plainview point debitage, and burned rock; Historic 19th century household occupation;, cut limestone foundation, sandstones, historic ceramics, metal, glass Prehistoric burned rock midden and associated lithic scatter Prehistoric scatter of burned rock and debitage, biface fragment Prehistoric open campsite; lithic scatter, biface, burned rock Prehistoric lithic procurement area, open campsite; debitage, cores, bifaces, dart point; unidentified Historic component Prehistoric lithic procurement area, open campsite; debitage, cores, and bifaces Prehistoric lithic procurement site; Chert flakes, chips, some unifaces, bifaces, and chert cobbles Testing recommended on site form Disturbed by modern house, erosion Testing recommended on site form HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-63

104 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM552 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic procurement site; debitage, some unifaces, bifaces, and chert cobbles 41WM553 Undetermined Archaic campsite; flakes, burned debitage, more tool fragments, modified unifaces 41WM556 Undetermined Late Prehistoric campsite in rock overhang and lithic procurement area; burned rock midden, debitage, groundstone fragments, manos, bone, shell frags, Scallorn points, Ensor points, Fairland point, bifaces Heavily pot hunted 41W559 Eligible Pavo Blanco Site. Paleo-Indian, through Late Prehistoric lithic procurement area and open campsite 41WM581 Undetermined Prehistoric cave dwelling; debitage, burned rock fragments, one hammerstone, bifaces. Cave has an ashy soil fill, bone reported from fill, some burned rock and debitage near the entrance Site form records as NRHP eligible 41WM593 Undetermined Archaic lithic procurement; Montell point and chert flakes; 41WM600 Undetermined Unknown prehistoric biface fragments 41WM601 Undetermined Prehistoric; debitage, bifaces, biface fragments, and dart point fragment. Site appears to be extensively disturbed by bulldozing and sewer line excavations HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-64

105 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM602 Undetermined Middle Archaic and Late Archaic; projectile points, core, debitage, bifaces, Bulverde dart point, Mahomet dart point, and dart point fragments 41WM603 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter; biface fragments, debitage, and dart point fragment 41WM604 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter and biface fragments; historic scatter and historic purple grass Disturbed area 41WM605 Undetermined Historic scatter, turn of the century to 1931 possible habitation site: purple manganese glass, clear bottle glass, ironstone, whiteware, sheet metal fragments, and farm machinery 41WM618 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage and bifaces. 41WM631 Undetermined Early Archaic possible kill/butcher locale; debitage, core fragment, bifaces, modified flakes, and scraper 41WM632 41WM646 Ineligible within ROW* Ineligible within ROW (2002, 2006); undetermined (2007) Early Archaic burned rock middens and possible rock feature; Unknown historic Prehistoric open campsite and lithic scatter; cores, biface fragments, and debitage 41WM649 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter; HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-65

106 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS debitage 41WM650 41WM653 Ineligible Undetermined Prehistoric open campsite, burned rock and lithic scatter; biface and debitage Prehistoric lithic procurement locale; debitage, unifacial tools, tested cobbles, and unifacial and bifacial cores 41WM654 Undetermined Early 20th c. Trash or camp site 41WM697 Undetermined Prehistoric quarry site; cores, biface, uniface, and debitage 41WM701 Undetermined Early to Late Archaic burial and burned rock middens; gouge, Ensor, Frio, and, Bell dart points, possible Bell preform, debitage, and cores 41WM715 Undetermined Prehistoric open campsite; flakes, tested cores, point fragment and biface fragment 41WM716 Undetermined Champion Cemetery The cemetery may have more unmarked graves. 41WM718 Ineligible Early Archaic, Jarrell phase open campsite and surface scatter; debitage, bifaces, and Martindale point; Historic farm/ranch area and rock wall 41WM719 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter; Historic 19th or 20th century farm/ranch area with rock walls 41WM720 Ineligible Prehistoric debitage 41WM721 41WM722 Ineligible Undetermined Prehistoric lithic procurement area; cores and debitage Prehistoric lithic procurement area; cores and debitage HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-66

107 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM723 Undetermined Prehistoric; tested cores and debitage 41WM730 Undetermined No available information on TASA 41WM731 Eligible Brushy Creek; Archaic through Late Prehistoric campsite and burned rock middens; debitage, utilized flakes, and tested cores; Historic scatter; glass, metal, ceramics, tile stoneware, dilapidated limestone house structure with rock alignments around the structure. State Antiquities Landmark 41WM736 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter 41WM754 41WM760 Undetermined Undetermined Prehistoric burned rock middens and lithic scatter with sinkholes; debitage Middle Archaic to unknown prehistoric lithic scatter, possible campsite,, and lithic quarry; projectile points, knives, scraper fragments, and possible blanks 41WM768 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic resource, procurement and reduction site; cores, split cobbles, biface preforms, debitage, and possible spoke shave 41WM774 41WM775 Ineligible within ROW* Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter; biface fragments, lithic tools, and debitage Early Archaic lithic scatter; debitage, tested cobbles and Andice points 41WM786 Undetermined No available information on TASA 41WM834 Ineligible No available information on TASA 41WM913 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-67

108 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM923 Ineligible within ROW* Prehistoric burned rock midden and lithic scatter 41WM924 41WM925 Ineligible within ROW* Ineligible within ROW* Prehistoric; no other available information on TASA Prehistoric; no other available information on TASA 41WM945 Ineligible Prehistoric debitage, broken point, and broken biface; Historic 19th century artifact scatter glass and metal 41WM964 Eligible Krienke Site; Late Archaic (associated with the Wilson- Leonard Site); deeply buried deposits. stone lined pit, debitage, mussel valves, bone, Lange dart point, and biface fragments 41WM968 41WM969 41WM970 41WM973 41WM974 41WM978 Ineligible Ineligible Ineligible Ineligible Ineligible Undetermined Prehistoric core, burned limestone fragment, and debitage Prehistoric debitage and bifacial fragments Prehistoric debitage and bifacial fragments Early and Late Archaic lithic scatter; projectile points, biface fragments, and debitage Middle Archaic to Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter/campsite; Martindale or Pedernales fragmented projectile point, scraper, cores, and debitage Prehistoric lithic procurement area/campsite; debitage, bifaces, cores, and burned rock HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-68

109 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM984 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage and biface fragments 41WM996 Ineligible Prehistoric campsite; burned rock midden, debitage, bifaces, cores, and projectile points; Historic glass, ceramics and metal 41WM997 Ineligible Late Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage and Scallorn point 41WM999 Ineligible Archaic to unknown prehistoric lithic procurement and lithic scatter; tested cobbles and pebbles, debitage, biface fragments, dart point fragment); Historic solarized glass and one brown glass fragment 41WM1000 Ineligible Historic farmstead; limestone rock fence remnant, short wooden foundation posts, and cattle feeders 41WM1001 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic procurement and reduction site 41WM1005 Ineligible Historic trash site; glass, ceramics, and metal 41WM1006 Eligible Davis Cemetery ca to Associated with Webster s Massacre. 41WM1008 Ineligible in ROW (2002); Ineligible (2006) Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-69

110 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM1031 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter; Historic home site; limestone chimney and associated artifact scatter 41WM1032 Ineligible Subsurface concrete tank 41WM1033 Eligible Historic cattle dip concrete canal with cedar fence posts set in the concrete walls 41WM1034 Eligible Historic farmstead; house site with chimney falls, foundation remnants, metal debris, domestic and agricultural artifacts, stone lined well, and ruinous animal pens and outbuildings 41WM1035 Ineligible Historic ca farmstead with extant house, windmill, and water tower 41WM1040 Ineligible Possible Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Prehistoric disturbed burned rock midden and lithic scatter; uniface fragment, projectile points, and unifacial tools 41WM1041 Ineligible Possible Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Prehistoric burned rock midden and lithic scatter; biface, biface fragments, projectile points, and perforator base; Unknown historic green glass 41WM1042 Ineligible Prehistoric burned rock midden and lithic scatter; thermally altered debitage, burned rocks, charcoal, and Rabdotus shells Heavily disturbed/looted 41WM1043 Ineligible Historic well and artifact scatter; glass, ceramics, and metal HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-70

111 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM WM WM WM WM1054 Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter; biface, and debitage Prehistoric lithic scatter; biface and debitage Prehistoric lithic scatter; biface and debitage Prehistoric lithic scatter; biface, dart point fragment, and debitage Prehistoric lithic scatter; biface point fragments, and debitage 41WM1055 Ineligible within ROW* No available information on TASA 41WM1062 Undetermined No available information on TASA 41WM1065 Ineligible Historic ca. Late 19 th century homestead and two associated structures 41WM WM WM WM WM WM WM1166 Undetermined Ineligible Ineligible (2005); Undetermined (2007) Ineligible within ROW* Ineligible within ROW* Ineligible within ROW* Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter and burned rock midden Prehistoric lithic scatter; burned limestone and lithic tool Prehistoric lithic scatter; core and debitage Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage, stemmed projectile point, and biface, and burned rock fragments Prehistoric lithic scatter; modified flake, debitage and l burned rocks. Prehistoric campsite; debitage, lithic tools, and burned rock; Historic campsite ca. 1956; limestone picnic table, fire pit, limestone slab well, and well house. Historic scatter; ceramics, glass, and metal HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-71

112 TABLE 2-15 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA TRINOMIAL NRHP STATUS SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS 41WM WM1182 Ineligible Ineligible Prehistoric campsite and lithic scatter; debitage and burned rocks Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage, modified flakes, scrapers, biface fragments, and projectile point fragment. 41WM1183 Undetermined Prehistoric debitage 41WM1197 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter core, bifaces, modified flakes, and debitage 41WM1198 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter and lithic procurement; debitage 41WM1202 Undetermined Prehistoric; burned rock midden 41WM1220 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter; tested cobbles, cores and debitage 41WM1244 Undetermined Late Archaic, Late Prehistoric campsite and lithic scatter; projectile point and debitage 41WM1255 Ineligible Historic French/Spanish Colonial farmstead; glass, ceramics, and metal 41WM WM WM1268 Ineligible within ROW* Ineligible within ROW* Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter and lithic procurement; debitage and bifaces Prehistoric lithic scatter and lithic procurement; debitage and bifaces Prehistoric lithic scatter and lithic procurement area; debitage Source: THC 2016b. Note: If the NRHP eligibility is marked with an * then the site has only been partially been determined eligible/ineligible. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-72

113 TABLE 2-16 CEMETERY NUMBER CEMETERIES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA CEMETERY NAME COUNTY COMMENTS WM-C007 Champion Cemetery Williamson WM-C038 Davis Cemetery (Victims of the Webster Massacre) Williamson WM-C113 Gilreath Family Williamson WM-C108 Hopewell Round Rock Cemetery Williamson Historic Texas Cemetery, Official Texas Historical Marker Official Texas Historical Marker/Centennial WM-C114 Minnick Cemetery Williamson WM-C023 Old Round Rock Cemetery Williamson Official Texas Historical Marker Slave Burial Ground in Old WM-C116 Round Rock Cemetery Source: THC 2016a, 2016b. Williamson Official Texas Historical Marker TABLE 2-17 OFFICIAL TEXAS HISTORICAL MARKERS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA NAME Champion Cemetery Davis Cemetery (Victims of the Webster Massacre) Granite for the State Capitol Old Round Rock Cemetery Round Rock Volunteer Fire Department Slave Burial Ground in Old Round Rock Cemetery William M. Owen House Complex (Located just outside of the study area) Source: THC 2016a, 2016b. COUNTY Williamson Williamson Williamson Williamson Williamson Williamson Williamson The majority of the prehistoric archeological sites that have been recorded in the study area appear to be open campsites associated with burned rock middens, lithic scatters, and hearths in close proximity to streams and river channels (e.g., Brushy Creek and South San Gabriel River), uplands adjacent to these channels, and the bluff lines overlooking the major draws. For the few prehistoric sites in the study area that have produced diagnostic artifacts, most would appear to date to the Archaic period, perhaps not unexpected given the preponderance of sites with burned rock middens, which appear in this region beginning in the Middle Archaic Period and continue to appear in the central Texas archeological record into the Late Prehistoric Period Previous Investigations According to the TASA (THC 2015b), there have been 59 previously conducted cultural resource investigations within the study area boundaries (see Table 2-18). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-73

114 TABLE 2-18 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INVESTIGATING AGENCY NAME SURVEY/PROJECT NAME SITE(S) RECORDED/VISITED Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin 1959, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1978, 1980 Texas Highway Department 1972, 1973 Information not available on TASA Information not available on TASA 41WM11, 41WM150, 41WM229, 41WM231, 41WM438 41WM233, 41WM234, 41WM235, 41WM236, 41WM443 Houston Archeological Society 1978 Information not available on TASA 41WM731 Texas Department of Water Resources An Archeological Reconnaissance along South Brushy Creek, near the City of Cedar Park, Williamson County, Texas - C (Fox and Whitsett 1984) RM 3406: From IH 35 N. of State Department of Highways and Public Round Rock, West 1.7 Miles to Transportation Sam Bass Road (SDHPT 41WM ) Historic Resource Survey of Georgetown, Texas for the Georgetown Heritage Society Georgetown Heritage Society - An Inventory by Hardy-Heck- Moore (Moore and Kleinschmidt 1984) A Cultural Resources Survey of the Block House Creek Espey, Huston, & Associates Development, Williamson County, Texas. (Voellinger and Nightengale 1985) Inventory and Assessment of Cultural Resources, Jamail Prewitt and Associates, Inc. Property Development, Williamson County, 41WM559 Texas (Mercado-Allinger and Ragsdale 1984) An Archeological Survey of the Nash/Phillips Copus, The Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas Woods Subdivision, Williamson County, Texas (Howard and Jackson 1984) Inventory and Assessment of Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas Cultural Resources at the Ideal Basic Tract (Coffman et al. 41WM ) Coastal Environment, Inc. Baton Rouge, LA Cultural Resources Survey of 41WM697 41WM446, 41WM447, 41WM448, 41WM449, 41WM451 41WM549, 41WM550, 41WM551, 41WM552, 41WM553, 41WM556, 41WM581, 41W593 41WM311, 41WM618, 41WM631, 41WM632, 41WM646,41WM649, 41WM650 41WM600, 41WM601, 41WM602, 41WM603 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-74

115 TABLE 2-18 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INVESTIGATING AGENCY NAME SURVEY/PROJECT NAME SITE(S) RECORDED/VISITED 1985 the Proposed Leander Development Area, Williamson County, Texas (Bryant 1985) A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Brushy Creek WCID Espey, Huston, & Associates No. 1 Right-of-Way Williamson County, Texas Phase 2 (Voellinger et al. 1985) Davis Springs Subdivision Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas 1986 (THC 2016b) FM 734 (Parmer Lane) Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) (Bohuslav 1990) Archeological Survey of Three Proposed School Sites, Round Rock Independent School Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas District, Williamson County, Texas (Anthony and Brown 1991) A Cultural Resources Assessment and Archeological Survey of a Proposed Cedar Horizon Environmental Services Incorporated Park Wastewater Pipeline, Williamson County, Texas (Keller 1998) Survey Investigations Along FM 1431 and Cottonwood Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas Creek - Cedar Park, Texas Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas PBS&J PBS&J 2000 Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas (Feit and Karbula 1999) An Intensive Survey of the Proposed Site of the Southwest Regional Williamson County Park (Feit and Moreman 2000) A Geoarchaeological Investigation of the Brushy Creek Wastewater System, Contract 2 Extension, Williamson County, Texas (Rogers 1999) Leander Independent School District Survey (THC 2016b) Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Additions to Southwest Regional Williams County Park. Hicks & Company, Inc., Austin, Texas 41WM451, 41WM545, 41WM559, 41WM715, 41WM716, 41WM718, 41WM719, 41WM720, 41WM721, 41WM722, 41WM723, 41WM731 41WM559 41WM775 41WM768 41WM923 41WM945 41WM968, 41WM969, 41WM970, 41WM913 41WM984 41WM1000, 41WM1001 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-75

116 TABLE 2-18 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INVESTIGATING AGENCY NAME SURVEY/PROJECT NAME SITE(S) RECORDED/VISITED Horizon Environmental Services Incorporated Archaeological and Cultural Sciences Group 2002 Archaeological and Cultural Sciences Group PBS&J Prewitt and Associates, Inc. Prewitt and Associates, Inc. Paul Price Associates, Inc SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants (Moreman et al. 2001) An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey and Subsequent Testing Along a Proposed Water/Wastewater Line within the Northern Rightof-Way of FM1431 East, Williamson County, Texas (Brownlow 2001) Brushy Creek Regional Park System and Conservation Corridor - Phase 1a (THC 2016b) Cultural Resource Survey of the Parmer Lane Extension Project, FM 1431 to FM 2243, Williamson County, Texas (Nash et al. 2002) A Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Hike and Bike Trail for the Brushy Creek Regional Parks System Phase IB, Williamson County, Texas (Smith 2002) Archeological Impact Evaluations and Surveys in the Texas Department of Transportation's Abilene, Austin, Brownwood, Bryan, Fort Worth, Waco and Yoakum Districts, (Fields et al. 2003) Archeological Impact Evaluations and Surveys in the Texas Department of Transportation's Austin and Waco Districts, (Fields and Kibler 2002) Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Brushy Creek Surface Water Supply System, Williamson County, Texas (Oksanen et al. 2003) Archeological Survey and Testing for the Proposed Avery Ranch Golf Course, 41WM236, 41WM964, 41WM234 41WM716 41WM1031, 41WM1033, 41WM1034, 41WM1035, 41WM1040, 41WM1041, 41WM1042, 41WM WM716 41WM999 41WM WM968, 41WM1050, 41WM1051, 41WM1052, 41WM1053, 41WM WM25, 41WM559, 41WM973, 41WM974, 41WM978 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-76

117 TABLE 2-18 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INVESTIGATING AGENCY NAME SURVEY/PROJECT NAME SITE(S) RECORDED/VISITED Williamson County, Texas (Miller 2002) A Cultural Resources Survey PBS&J of the Proposed Giddens 41WM996, 41WM997, Property Development Project 41WM1065 Williamson County, Texas (Blakistone 2003) PBS&J Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed Brushy Creek Regional Wastewater System Contracts 20 and 21 and Significance Testing of Site 41WM997 Williamson, County, Texas (Hales 2003) 41WM997 An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Widening of Ranchto Horizon Environmental Services Incorporated Market Road 2243 North 41WM1005, 41WM1006, and South Alignments, 41WM1100 Leander, Williamson County, Texas (Ralph and Brownlow 2004) Lower Colorado River Authority Onion Branch Wastewater Line, LCRA Annual Report of Cultural Resource 41WM720, 41WM721 Investigations for 2004 (Prikryl et al. 2006) American Archaeology Group LLC Archaeological Survey of Champion Park for Williamson County Parks Department, Cedar Park, Williamson 41WM716 County, Texas (Bradle and Bernhardt 2005) Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas Archeological Investigations of Additional Properties along the Proposed US 183A, Williamson County, Texas (Campbell and Lassen 2007) 41WM646 Results of Archeological Investigations of a Proposed Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas Wastewater Line Along 41WM234, 41WM235, Spanish Oak Creek in 41WM236, 41WM964 Williamson County, Texas (Stotts et al. 2007) Horizon Environmental Services Incorporated Intensive Cultural Resources 41WM1163, 41WM1164, HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-77

118 TABLE 2-18 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INVESTIGATING AGENCY NAME SURVEY/PROJECT NAME SITE(S) RECORDED/VISITED Horizon Environmental Services Incorporated PBS&J SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants 2007 American Archaeology Group LLC Anthony & Brown Consulting 2008 American Archaeology Group LLC Hicks & Company, Austin, Texas Horizon Environmental Services Incorporated Survey of the North Brushy Creek Interceptor Extension, Phase 1, Cedar Park, Williamson County, Texas (Owens 2007a) Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of Section 404 Jurisdictional Waterways on the 260-Acre Winding Creek Tract, Williamson County, Texas (Owens 2007b) A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed P7 Pipeline Extension along Parmer Lane and CR 178, Cedar Park, Williamson County, Texas (Stahmen 2007) Archaeological Survey of the Blockhouse Creek Wastewater Interceptor Project, Williamson County, Texas (Galindo and Miller 2007) Cultural Resources Survey of the Brushy Creek Wastewater Line Project in Williamson County, Texas (Wilcox 2007) Archaeological Survey of the Highway 29 Bypass Project for the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas (Bradle et al. 2008) Crosscreek Trail-PFDS (THC 2016b) Archaeological Survey of the Escalera Elevated Storage Tank Project for the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas (Bradle and Berhardt 2008) Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Brushy Creek Roadway Improvement Project in Williamson County, Texas (Stotts 2008) Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the 12.8 Acre Stone 41WM WM WM1031, 41WM1032, 41WM1033, 41WM1034, 41WM1035, 41WM1042, 41WM WM1159, 41WM WM WM556 41WM WM WM25, 41WM446, 41WM447, 41WM544, 41WM913 41WM1220 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-78

119 TABLE 2-18 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INVESTIGATING AGENCY NAME SURVEY/PROJECT NAME SITE(S) RECORDED/VISITED Oak School Tract, Round Rock, Williamson County, Texas (Owens 2009) Lower Colorado River Authority T Transmission Line Maintenance, T Transmission Line Maintenance, LCRA Annual 41WM1257, 41WM1258 Report of Cultural Resource Investigations for 2010 (Hixson et al. 2011) Atkins A Cultural Resources Survey of the Leander Independent School District's Proposed Sarita Valley Future School 41WM1255, 41WM1168 Site Williamson County, Texas (Nash and Hanson 2010) Atkins Cultural Resources Survey City of Round Rock Creek Bend Boulevard Extension 41WM768, 41WM1183 Williamson County, Texas CSJ No (Nash 2012) Jacobs Engineering, Inc. Intensive Archaeological Survey Round Rock Treated Water Transmission Line - Segment 3, Williamson 41WM1268 County, Texas (Voellinger 2012) aci consulting Cultural Resources Survey for the Cottonwood Creek Wastewater Collection System Phase C1 Wastewater Line, 41WM234 City of Cedar Park, Williamson County, Texas (Barnes and Scott 2013a) aci consulting Cultural Resources Survey for the Spanish Oak Creek Wastewater Line, City of Cedar Park, Williamson County, 41WM145 Texas (Barnes and Scott 2013b) SWCA Environmental Consultants Archaeological Survey of the North Brushy Creek Wastewater Interceptor 41WM1220 Project, Williamson County, Texas (Chavez 2013) HRA Gray & Pape, LLC Cultural Resources Survey for 41WM1005, 41WM1040, HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-79

120 TABLE 2-18 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INVESTIGATING AGENCY NAME SURVEY/PROJECT NAME SITE(S) RECORDED/VISITED Source: THC 2016b. Approximately 6 Miles of the Proposed Ronald Reagan Boulevard Main Pipeline Extension In Williamson County, Texas (Perrine and Treichel 2014) 41WM1041, and 41WM1035 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-80

121 High Probability Areas Review of the previously recorded cultural resource sites data indicates that the study area has not been entirely examined during previous archeological and historical investigations. Consequently, the records review results do not include all possible cultural resources sites within the study area. To further assess and avoid potential impacts to cultural resources, high probability areas (HPAs) for prehistoric archeological sites were defined during the route analysis process. High probability areas were designated based on a review of the site and survey data within the study area, as well as soils and geologic data, and topographic variables. Within the study area, the prehistoric HPAs typically occur near and along streams, and outcroppings of gravels suited to stone tool manufacture (central Texas is rich in sources of chert for raw material). Terraces and topographic high points that would provide flats for camping and expansive landscape views as well as access to fresh water sources are also considered to have a high probability for containing prehistoric archeological sites. Prehistoric sites recorded in the study area are located in close proximity to stream channels, and on gravelly upland soils on level terraces overlooking larger streams, for example. Historic age resources are likely to be found near water sources. However, they will also be located in proximity to primary and secondary transportation routes (e.g., trails, roads, and railroads) which provided access to the sites. Buildings and cemeteries are also more likely to be located within or near historic communities. Historic HPAs were developed by georeferencing the 1962 Leander; 1925 and 1949 Round Rock; and 1928 Georgetown USGS topographic maps and plotting structures near the proposed links. Three-hundred-foot buffers were then created around the structures. The intersection of the proposed links and buffers were designated as HPAs. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-81

122 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 2-82

123 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE CONSTRAINTS A description of the land use, environmental, and cultural resources within the study area was presented in Section 2.0 of this report. These resources were taken into consideration during the preliminary alternative route and substation development process. These resources that have particular value or are particularly sensitive to potential impacts from this type of project are discussed below. The following sections indicate areas to be avoided, where practicable, or crossed only with care and possible mitigation. 3.1 Natural Resources Sensitive natural resources identified within the study area include Brushy and Cottonwood creeks, wetland/riparian habitat associated with the floodplains and tributaries of Brushy Creek, other vegetated perennial creeks, woodland/brushland areas, karst features and caves, and natural springs. Riparian areas along creeks/streams provide a source of water, habitat, and are often corridors for wildlife to move through that area. In addition, these riparian zones are sensitive because of the potential for constructionrelated impacts to surface waters, and because of the possible presence of associated wetland habitats. The upland woodland/brushland vegetation communities provide valuable wildlife habitat and in some cases may provide potential habitat for federally listed bird species, black-capped vireo or golden cheeked warbler. Karst features, caves, and springs may occur due to the unique geology of the study area. These features have the potential to be habitat for federally listed invertebrates or salamanders. While the proposed line cannot avoid crossing all of these sensitive areas, routing locations were identified taking these areas into consideration and, upon approval of a route by the PUCT, construction should occur within these areas in a manner that minimizes impacts. 3.2 Human Resources The study area contains several categories of human and cultural resources that should be avoided where practicable to minimize potential adverse impacts. These areas were considered, although in some instances the predominant urban residential and commercial development with few areas of undeveloped land scattered throughout made it necessary to locate alternatives in proximity to these areas, such as habitable structures, residential subdivisions, parks and recreation areas, and heliports. Those areas considered to be particularly sensitive with regard to the location and construction of the Proposed Project are: HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 3-1

124 Habitable structures Single-family and multi-family dwellings and related structures, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, industrial structures, business structures, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, or other structures normally inhabited by humans or intended to be inhabited by humans on a daily or regular basis. Residential Subdivisions Several residential subdivisions are located in the southern and eastern portions of the study area. These areas should be avoided by new ROW, where practicable, or crossed along existing ROW or property lines, where available, because of the number of and density of existing habitable structures. Parks and Recreation Areas Two county parks, several local parks, and school playground areas are located within the study area. Because of the recreational, aesthetic, and conservation benefits that parks provide to the public, these areas should be avoided whenever practicable, or crossed along existing ROW or property lines. Airports and Heliports One FAA registered heliport is located within the study area, the Cedar Park Regional Medical Center. FAA regulations require notice of the construction of structures within certain distances of airports and heliports. 3.3 Constraint Areas For the purpose of routing the proposed transmission line, the resources described above were classified as areas that should be avoided, if practicable, by the alternative routes, or as those areas which should be crossed only with special care and possible mitigation. Constraint areas are shown on Figures 4-27 (Appendix D) and 5-1 (Appendix E). In order to protect recorded cultural resource sites from potential vandalism and protected species habitat, their locations have been omitted from the constraints map. The following areas should be avoided, where practicable, or crossed with care or possible mitigation: Habitable structures Developed areas (residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and cultural [churches, schools, etc.]) Parks and recreation areas Known habitat of federally listed endangered/threatened species Potential endangered species habitat, particularly that of the golden-cheeked warbler, blackcapped vireo, Jollyville Plateau salamander, Georgetown salamander, and karst invertebrates. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 3-2

125 Wildlife preserves, conservation and mitigation areas Karst features, caves, and springs Cemeteries and graves, for their cultural, social, and historic values Airports and private airstrips, because of potential conflicts with navigable airspace Vegetated floodplains of Brushy and Cottonwood creeks, other riparian areas, and adjacent wetlands for their ecological value as habitat and avian stopover areas, and their sensitivity to construction-related impacts. Large ponds and associated wetlands, for their ecological value to wildlife and their sensitivity to construction-related impacts. Recorded cultural resources sites (historic and prehistoric) for their social and historical value. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 3-3

126 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 3-4

127 4.0 SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 4.1 No Action Alternative As presented in the Application with this EA, LCRA TSC intends to construct and operate the proposed 138-kV transmission line upon approval from the PUCT. In the event the Application is not approved by the PUCT, the potential impacts discussed in Section 5.0 would not occur. In addition, continuing to serve the area's electric load without the Proposed Project will result in the degradation of reliable electric service impacting a large number of end-use customers and could significantly limit the continued healthy economic development of the broader area. Furthermore, PEC s ability to meet its obligations for providing cost-effective electric service and to respond to emergencies will be severely limited without the Proposed Project. 4.2 Alternative Substation Selection and Evaluation A new 138-kV electric transmission line is required to provide transmission service to two new loadserving substations. The new transmission line end points will connect to the existing electric grid at the Leander substation and at the Round Rock substation. The project will extend through a proposed substation (Substation 2) in the vicinity of the intersection of Ronald Reagan Boulevard and Crystal Falls Parkway and continue through a proposed substation (Substation 1) in the vicinity of the intersection of Parmer Lane/Ronald Reagan Boulevard and FM POWER conducted environmental studies and prepared a description of the existing environment, Sections 2.0 through , within the study area for the purpose of identifying preliminary alternative transmission line routes. This information was also useful to LCRA TSC while evaluating the alternative substation locations. LCRA TSC and POWER identified several preliminary alternative substation site locations that support the need for the project (Substation Siting Areas 1 and 2 as depicted on the various maps contained in this EA). Factors considered in identifying these locations include the proximity to the electric load growth area, location on a single property/parcel owner with approximately five to seven acres, costs associated with construction of the substation and distribution infrastructure, ability to serve existing and future electric load, proximity to existing distribution facilities, proximity to suitable access roads, topography, and nearby environmental features and land uses. The preliminary alternative substation site locations within Substation Siting Areas 1 and 2 were presented at the October 13 and 14, 2015 open house meetings and are shown on Figure 4-1. Subsequent to the identification of the preliminary alternative substation site locations, LCRA TSC contacted the property owners of each site to discuss LCRA TSC s potential purchase of the property HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-1

128 required for each site. In addition, LCRA TSC subsequently attempted to identify potential properties on the market capable of serving as substation sites. When suitable properties meeting the criteria listed and on the market were identified, LCRA TSC representatives contacted the sellers to determine if they would be willing to sell LCRA TSC the property. If the owner was willing to sell the property and if the property was determined to be a feasible substation site location, the site was added as an alternative substation site location. 4.3 Alternative Route Selection The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate numerous alternative transmission line routes that are feasible from an economic, engineering, system planning, and environmental perspective. LCRA TSC utilizes a multiphase approach for completing a project: define the study area; obtain environmental information; map environmental and land use constraints; develop preliminary alternative route segments and substation sites; seek public input; identify primary alternative routes and substation sites; conduct environmental, engineering and cost analyses; evaluate primary alternative routes; seek PUCT approval; and design and construct the transmission facility Preliminary Alternative Route Segments The preliminary alternative route segments were identified in accordance with Section (c)(4)(a)- (D) of the Texas Utilities Code, PUCT Substantive Rule (b)(3)(B), including the PUCT s policy of prudent avoidance, and are consistent with LCRA TSC s standard routing practices. POWER was engaged to identify an adequate number of environmentally acceptable and geographically diverse preliminary alternative route segments while considering among other such factors as community values, parks and recreational areas, historical and aesthetic values, environmental integrity, route length parallel to or using existing compatible corridors or parallel to parcel boundaries, and prudent avoidance. POWER performed environmental and land use data collection and prepared a description of the existing environment within the study area for the proposed project (Section 2.0). POWER used information obtained during the data collection process to develop a constraints map (Figure 4-8) and to identify preliminary alternative route segments. The preliminary route segments were selected by taking into account the use of and paralleling of existing compatible ROWs (existing transmission lines and their ROWs, roadways, apparent property lines, natural or cultural features), ongoing and proposed land uses and areas of land use and environmental concern. More detail of the features considered while developing the preliminary alternative route segments and preliminary alternative routes is provided in Sections through HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-2

129 Ground reconnaissance of the study area and computer-based evaluation of digital aerial imagery were utilized for both refinement and evaluation of the preliminary alternative route segments. The data collection effort, although concentrated in the early stages of the project, was an ongoing process and continued through the point of filing the CCN application. LCRA TSC reviewed these preliminary alternative route segments and substation sites, taking into consideration the additional factors of engineering, construction, and cost constraints, and made some revisions by modifying individual segments and adding potential substation sites. The resulting preliminary alternative route segment and substation site network (Figure 4-1) was presented to the public at the open house meetings in October PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM The purpose of the open house meetings were to solicit input from residents, landowners, public officials, and other interested parties concerning the proposed project and the preliminary alternative route segments, and to: promote a better understanding of the proposed project including the purpose, need, potential benefits and impacts, and PUCT certification process; inform the public with regard to the routing procedure, schedule, and route approval process; and gather the values and concerns of the public and community leaders Open House Meetings The open house meetings were held on October 13 and 14, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Austin Sports Center of Cedar Park in Cedar Park, Texas and Wiley Middle School in Leander, Texas. LCRA TSC mailed written notices of the meeting to all owners of property within approximately 350 feet of each preliminary alternative route segment centerline (see Appendix B). Additional letters were sent to elected officials and other interested parties. This resulted in the mailing of 2,558 meeting notices. In addition, a public notice was published on the listed dates in the following four newspapers having circulation within the project area counties: Austin American-Statesman October 5 & October 12, 2015 Hill Country News October 1 & October 8, 2015 Round Rock Leader October 1 & October 8, 2015 Williamson County Sun September 30 & October 7, 2015 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-3

130 The public notices announced the location, time, and purpose of the meeting. A copy of the published newspaper notice is located in Appendix B. At the meeting, personnel from LCRA TSC and POWER manned information stations with each station devoted to a particular aspect of the project. These stations included maps, illustrations, photographs, and/or text explaining each particular topic. Three GIS stations were available to show the extent of the project, the proposed preliminary alternative route segments, property ownership parcel boundaries and recent aerial photography of the project area. The GIS stations were also available to answer detailed questions such as the distance from the proposed alternative route segment centerline to the nearest corner of a habitable structure. Interested attendees were encouraged to visit each station in order, so that the entire process could be explained in the logical sequence of project development. The information station format is typically advantageous because it allows attendees to process information in a more relaxed manner and also allows them to focus on their particular area of interest and ask specific questions. Furthermore, the one-to-one discussions with LCRA TSC and/or POWER personnel typically encourage more interaction from those attendees who might be hesitant to participate in a more formal speakeraudience format. Upon entering, visitors were asked to sign in and were handed an information packet including a questionnaire. The questionnaire solicited input on the proposed project and also included an evaluation of the information presented at the meeting. The information packet included answers to frequently asked questions and a map indicating the location of the preliminary alternative route segments and substation locations. Copies of the questionnaire and information packet are located in Appendix B. After the open house meetings, POWER reviewed and evaluated each questionnaire that was submitted at the meetings or that was sent in after the meetings. Of the 615 people that signed in at the open house meetings, a total of 255 submitted questionnaires to LCRA TSC at the meeting. In addition to the questionnaires received at the open house meetings, 1,433 additional questionnaires, as well as thousands of letters and s, were received from individuals after the meetings, some of whom did not attend the open house meetings. LCRA TSC received numerous (approx. 4,000) s and letters from citizens expressing their concerns about the potential project, a significant number of which addressed potential impacts on the Brushy Creek Trail and park system. A total of 1,688 questionnaires and over 3,500 s were received by LCRA TSC. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-4

131 A review of the questionnaires indicated that the majority of the respondents agreed that the need for the project had been adequately explained (59%), and that the exhibits and information presented was helpful to them in understanding the project (57%). Two hundred seventy-two (16%) of the questionnaires received indicated that the features on the Land Use and Environmental Constraints Map were accurately plotted. One thousand forty-seven respondents (62%) indicated that they were not aware of any missing features on the Land Use and Environmental Constraints Map. Respondents were asked if they had a concern with a particular preliminary alternative route segment as they were presented at the open house meeting (Appendix B and Figure 4-1). They were also asked to describe their concerns. Segment N3 received the most negative concerns (451), followed by Segments D3 (237) and O3 (205). As described earlier, in addition to the questionnaires received, a significant number of the over 3,500 comments received about the project expressed concern regarding Segment N3. Segment X2 received the most written positive comments (354), followed by Segments A1 (349) and Z (328). Table 4-1 summarizes the segments that received the most responses to this question, both negative and positive. TABLE 4-1 SEGMENT CONCERNS/COMMENTS SEGMENT N3 D3 O3 X2 A1 Z Negative Concerns Positive Comments The questionnaire also solicited comments concerning typical transmission line routing issues, such as land use, paralleling existing corridors, and community values/resources. The questionnaire asked the respondents to rank their greatest concerns from one (greatest concern) to 11 (least concern) from a list of features which included: reliable electric service; parallel existing transmission line ROW; parallel other existing compatible ROW; parallel property lines; maximize the distance from residences, schools, churches, nursing homes; commercial buildings; historic sites; parks and recreational areas; minimize visibility of the lines; and minimize environmental impacts or other concerns. The greatest concerns regarding routing the proposed transmission line project include maximizing the distance from residences (51%), maintain reliable service (7%), and maximize distance from parks and recreational areas (6%) Post Open House Meetings After the open house meetings held in Cedar Park and Leander on October 13 and 14, 2015, LCRA staff met individually or in groups with several public officials, local representatives, and homeowners associations. A total of approximately 30 post open house meetings were held. The purpose of the HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-5

132 meetings was to inform the officials, the landowners, or their representatives about the Proposed Project, the transmission line routing process, the PUCT application and review process, and to gather information from interested parties about potential routing constraints and issues/concerns about potential route segments, or substation locations. Some of the more common concerns or issues presented by the landowners at the open houses and afterwards during individual and group meetings held with LCRA TSC representatives included, but are not limited to, the following: proximity of the routes and substation locations to homes; potential environmental impacts such as impacts to wildlife habitat, trees, and streams; aesthetic or visual impacts caused by visibility of the substation/transmission lines; impacts to property values; and impacts on recreational areas, particularly the Brushy Creek Trail and park system. LCRA TSC representatives had multiple meetings and conversations with State Legislators and both staff and elected officials from the City of Cedar Park, City of Georgetown, City of Leander, City of Round Rock, Leander ISD and Williamson County. The purpose of these meetings was to inform the officials about the status of the Proposed Project, discuss alternate route segments and substation sites, discuss potential project impacts, better understand community values in the area, and to explain the transmission line routing and PUCT CCN process Internet Website To better communicate with the public and provide up-to-date project information, LCRA TSC created a section on LCRA s main website that included project-specific information regarding the Proposed Project ( Project information available on the website included: Project Questionnaire Open house invitations/ads Frequently Asked Questions Exhibits from the open house meetings Aerial photography and topographic maps depicting the study area, alternative routes, and substation locations Property ownership maps Interactive mapping tool that allows individuals to zoom in on the preliminary segments/substation sites HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-6

133 Comments from Agencies and Officials The following local, state, and federal agencies and officials were contacted by letter in February 2015 by LCRA TSC and/or POWER to solicit comments, concerns, and information regarding potential environmental impacts, permits, or approvals for the construction of the proposed 138-kV transmission line in central Texas. Maps of the study area were included with each letter. Sample copies of the letters, and responses received as of the date of this report are included in Appendix A. Contacts Made by POWER: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Fort Worth District United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Park Service (NPS) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Austin Region Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Aviation Division TxDOT District Engineer - Austin TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division TxDOT Planning and Programming Texas General Land Office (GLO) Texas Historical Commission (THC) Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Williamson County Historical Commission Capital Area Council of Governments Contacts Made by LCRA TSC: Atmos Energy Austin Energy Georgetown Utility System Oncor Electric Delivery Company HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-7

134 Pedernales Electric Cooperative Applicable United States Senators Applicable United States Congressmen Applicable Texas Senators Applicable Texas House Members Williamson County Officials City of Austin City of Cedar Park City of Georgetown City of Leander City of Round Rock Georgetown Independent School District (ISD) Leander ISD Round Rock ISD Upper Brushy Creek Water Control and Improvement District City of Austin Economic Growth and Redevelopment Services Georgetown Department of Economic Development Round Rock Economic Development Partnership Austin Chamber of Commerce Cedar Park Chamber of Commerce Georgetown Chamber of Commerce Leander Chamber of Commerce Round Rock Chamber of Commerce The comments from the meetings, website, and agencies were evaluated, considered, and factored into the overall evaluation of the preliminary alternative route segments and development of the alternative routes and substation sites. POWER and LCRA TSC reviewed and considered the comments received during the routing process. As a result of the input received, some modifications, deletions, and/or additions were made to complete the preliminary alternative route segments and substation locations. HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-8

135 4.4 Additions and Modifications to the Preliminary Alternative Substation Sites Information received by LCRA TSC and POWER from the public, officials, and agencies resulted in adding five additional substation sites to the eleven original substation sites presented at the open house in October Comments were received requesting placement of substation sites away from residential and commercial development. In response to the input received, LCRA TSC continued to review the identified substation siting areas to find additional substation alternatives. In particular, LCRA TSC identified several properties that were for sale and of adequate size and feasibility for substation location. Substation Site 1-7 was added to the west side of Sam Bass Road, approximately 0.7 mile north of FM Substation Site 2-6 was added to the northwest side of FM 2243, approximately 0.2 mile northeast of Sam Bass Road and Substation Site 2-7 was added to the south side of County Road 177, approximately 0.25 mile west of Sam Bass Road. Substation Site 1-4 was shifted slightly to the northeastern corner of the property. Additionally, LCRA TSC representatives had several meetings and conversations with Williamson County Commissioners about the potential use of Williamson County-owned properties for potential substation alternatives. As a result, Substation Site 1-8 was added in the northwest corner of the Southwest Williamson County Regional Park property, to the east side of Sam Bass Road, approximately 1.3 miles north of FM 1431, and Substation Site 2-8 was added on Williamson County property located on the west side of Ronald Reagan Boulevard, approximately 0.9 mile south of FM New primary alternative segments and minor adjustments to the existing preliminary alternative segments in the vicinity of the new substation sites were made and are described below. 4.5 Modifications to the Preliminary Alternative Route Segments Information received by LCRA TSC and POWER from the public, officials, and agencies resulted in modifications and deletions to the preliminary alternative route segments as well as the identification of new route segments as described in detail below. The preliminary alternative segments are presented in Figure 4-1, following the segment revisions described below; the primary alternative segments are reflected in Figure 4-26a and 4-26b New Segments Segment V1a was added east of Ronald Reagan Boulevard as an option that would increase the distance to over 300 feet from habitable structures located in the Caballo Ranch Subdivision (see Figure 4-8). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-9

136 Segment U1a was added east of Ronald Reagan Boulevard as an option that would increase the distance to over 300 feet from habitable structures located in the Caballo Ranch Subdivision. As a result of adding Segment U1a, a node was added near the end of Segment R1 relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment L5 (see Figure 4-8). Segment W2a was added north of FM 1431 as an option that would increase the distance to over 300 feet from habitable structures located in the Preserve at Stone Oak Subdivision. As a result of adding Segment W2a, Segments O5 and Q5 were created in order to connect Segment W2a with the alternative route network to the west and south (see Figure 4-19). Segment A3a was added south of FM 1431 as an option that would increase the distance to over 300 feet from habitable structures located in Sendero Springs and Behrens Ranch subdivisions. As a result of adding Segment A3a, a node was added near the end of Segment B3 relabeling the western portion of the segment as Segment P5 (see Figures 4-19 and 4-20). Segment D3a was added south of FM 1431 as an option that would increase the distance to over 300 feet from habitable structures located in the Hidden Glen Subdivision. As a result of adding both Segments A3a and D3a, Segment R5 was created in order to connect the new segments with the alternative route network to the south (see Figure 4-17). Segment B4a was added south of Brushy Creek Road as an option that would increase the distance to over 300 feet from habitable structures located in Oak Creek and Stone Canyon subdivisions. As a result of adding Segment B4a, a node was added near the end of Segment D4 relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment S5 (see Figure 4-22). Segment F4a was added west of Sam Bass Road as an option that would increase the distance to over 300 feet from habitable structures located in the Oak Creek and The Oaklands subdivisions (see Figure 4-23). Segment L4 was added across and east of Ronald Reagan Boulevard to connect proposed Substation 2-6 with the alternative route network to the west. Segment L4 would also parallel a future roadway. As a result of adding Segment L4, a node was added to the middle of Segment K relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment S4 (see Figure 4-4). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-10

137 Segment M4 was added across FM 2243 to connect proposed Substation 2-6 with the alternative route network to the east. As a result of adding Segment M4, a node was added near the end of Segment S relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment R4 (see Figure 4-4). Segment N4 was added to the west side of FM 2243 to connect proposed Substation 2-6 with the alternative route network to the south. As a result of adding Segment N4, a node was added to the middle of Segment R relabeling the eastern portion of the segment as Segment O4 (see Figure 4-4). Segment P4 was added to the east of FM 2243 to connect proposed Substation 2-6 with the alternative route network to the south. As a result of adding Segment P4, a node was added near the end of Segment V relabeling the western portion of the segment as Segment Q4 (see Figure 4-4). Segment V4 was added to the east of Ronald Reagan Boulevard along Brushy Creek in order to parallel an existing wastewater pipeline. As a result of adding Segment V4, a node was added to the middle of Segment N relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment U4 (see Figure 4-5). Segment X4 was added along Brushy Creek in order to parallel an existing wastewater pipeline. As a result of adding both Segments V4 and X4, a node was added to the middle of Segment I1 relabeling the northern portion of the segment as Segment W4 (see Figure 4-6). Segment Y4 was added along County Road 177 to connect Segments X4 and Z4 to Segments J1 and A5. As a result of adding Segment Y4, a node was added to the middle of Segment J1 relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment A5 (see Figure 4-7). Segment Z4 was added along Brushy Creek in order to parallel an existing wastewater pipeline and property boundary. Segment Z4 was further modified by adding Substation 2-7 to the northern portion of the segment. As a result of adding Substation Site 2-7, a node was added at the location of the substation site and the southern portion of Segment Z4 was relabeled as Segment D6. As a result of adding Segment D6, a node was added to the middle of Segment K1 relabeling the eastern portion of the segment as Segment B5 (see Figure 4-7). Segment C5 was added along Brushy Creek in order to parallel an existing wastewater pipeline. As a result of adding Segment C5, a node was added to the middle of Segment M1 relabeling the western portion of the segment as Segment F5 (see Figures 4-7 and 4-8). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-11

138 Segments E5 and H5 were added along Brushy Creek in order to parallel an existing wastewater pipeline (see Figure 4-8). Segment G5 was added across Brushy Creek to connect Segments V1a to Z1 (see Figure 4-8). Segment J5 was added south of FM 2243 to parallel a future roadway. As a result of adding Segment J5, two nodes were added to the middle of Segment A1 relabeling the central portion of the segment as Segment I5 and the southern portion of the segment as Segment K5 (see Figure 4-15). Segment N5 was added as an option that was not crossing an open pit on the quarry (Texas Crushed Stone) property. As a result of adding Segment N5, a node was added to the middle of Segment V2 relabeling the western portion of the segment as Segment M5 (see Figure 4-18). Segment T5 was added west of Sam Bass Road as an option for entering the Round Rock substation. As a result of adding Segment T5, a node was added to the middle of Segment H4, which decreased the length of the segment (see Figure 4-23). Segment X5 was added across and east of US Highway 183A due to public comment from the City of Leander and parallels property boundaries. As a result of adding Segment X5, a node was added to the middle of Segment F relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment Y5. Adding Segment X5 also added a node to the middle of Segment J relabeling a central portion of the segment as Segment Z5 (see Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Segment A6 was added west of Ronald Reagan Boulevard at the request from the City of Leander and parallels property boundaries. As a result of adding Segment A6, a node was added to the middle of Segment Z5 relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment B6. Adding Segment A6 also added a node to the middle of Segment S4 relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment C6 (see Figure 4-3). Segment E6 was added east of Sam Bass Road to provide an option through the Southwest Williamson County Regional Park as a result of public input, and parallels the property boundaries to the extent possible. Segment E6 was further modified by adding Substation Site 1-8 to the western end of the segment on the northwest corner of the Southwest Williamson County Regional Park property. As a result of adding Substation 1-8, a node was added at the location of the substation site and the end of Segment E6 was relabeled as Segment W5. As a result of adding Segment W5, a node was added to the middle of HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-12

139 Segment T1 relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment V5. Also as a result of adding Segment E6, a node was added to the middle of Segment B1 relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment U5 (see Figure 4-11). Segment F6 was added west of Ronald Reagan Boulevard to connect proposed Substation Site 2-8 with the alternative route network to the north. (see Figure 4-5). Segment G6 was added across Ronald Reagan Boulevard to connect proposed Substation 2-8 with the alternative route network to the east. As a result of adding Segment G4, a node was added near to the middle of Segment N relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment H6 (see Figure 4-5) Segment Modifications A portion of Segment H along US Hwy 183A Toll was modified by shifting it to the southwest to better parallel the property boundary and US Hwy 183A Toll (see Figure 4-24). Segment L was modified by slightly shifting it to the south to increase the distance to a habitable structure (see Figure 4-3). Segment Y was modified by shifting it to the northwest to better parallel a property boundary. As a result of shifting Segment Y, a node was added near the end of Segment W relabeling the southern portion of the segment as Segment T4 (see Figure 4-6). Segment D1 was shifted to the west to increase the distance to a habitable structure (see Figure 4-25). The northern portion of Segment I1 (which became Segment W4 after adding segments V4 and X4 to parallel a wastewater pipeline) was shifted to the southeast to provide a better creek crossing and to keep the segment on one property. As a result of shifting Segment I1, the node was moved to the south; increasing the length of Segment X and decreasing the length of Segment J1 (see Figure 4-6). The southern portion of Segment R1 and all of Segment L5 were shifted to the west to better parallel Ronald Reagan Boulevard (see Figure 4-8). The majority of Segment B2 was shifted to the east to better parallel Ronald Reagan Boulevard and property boundaries (see Figure 4-9). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-13

140 Segment D2 was modified by the addition of Substation Site 1-7 to the middle of the segment. As a result of adding Substation Site 1-7, a node was added at the location of the substation site and the southern portion of Segment D2 was relabeled as Segment K4 (see Figure 4-12). Due to shifting Substation Site 1-4 to the northeast as requested by the landowner, the length of Segment E2 increased and the length of Segment F2 was decreased (see Figure 4-9). Segment K2 was modified by shifting the southern portion to the east due to engineering and roadway constraints. As a result of shifting Segment K2, the node was also shifted east which decreased the length of Segment J3 and shifted Segment N3 slightly to the east (see Figure 4-10). The western portion of Segment T2 was shifted to the west to provide a better roadway parallel to a future roadway (see Figure 4-12). The eastern portion of Segment T2 was shifted slightly south to increase the distance to a new residential development. As a result of shifting Segment T2, the node was also shifted south, which extended Segment U5 further south, and the western portion of Segment U2 was also shifted slightly south (see Figure 4-19). The majority of Segment X2 was shifted to the east so that the segment could utilize the same alignment and right-of-way as the existing 138-kV transmission line. As a result of shifting Segment X2, the node was also shifted east which extended Segment B3 slightly further to the east (see Figure 4-16). Segment C3 was shifted to the east so that the segment could utilize the same alignment and right-of-way as the existing 138-kV transmission line. As a result of shifting Segment C3, Segment E3 was shifted to the south along with its node. This modification provided a better parallel to property boundaries. Shifting the nodes for Segment E3 to the south resulted in shifting the eastern portion of Segment D3 and the western portion of Segment H3 slightly to the south (see Figure 4-17). Segment F3 was shifted to the east to increase the distance to habitable structures and to parallel other utility infrastructure (see Figure 4-21). This adjustment was made after the City of Round Rock, the respective property owner, suggested the adjustment as a better use of this undevelopable, publicly owned land. Segment N3 was modified by shifting the western portion of the segment slightly further west closer to West Parmer Lane to avoid a newly constructed commercial building. The central portion of the segment HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-14

141 was shifted to the southwest and south side of Brushy Creek Road due to residential development (see Figure 4-14). Segment O3 was modified by shifting the western portion of the segment to the south side of Sam Bass Road. This modification was made to avoid a newly constructed commercial building located within the right-of-way that would be needed for Segment O3 (see Figure 4-13). Segments U3 and B4 were shifted to the east to provide a better parallel to property boundaries (see Figure 4-22). Segment A4 was shifted to the north to provide a better parallel to Hairy Man Road. As a result of shifting Segment A4, the node was also shifted north and Segment Z3 was combined with Segment B4 (see Figure 4-22). Segment D4 was modified by shifting it to the west due to the construction of a new habitable structure (see Figure 4-22). The eastern portion of Segment F4 was shifted to the northeast in order to connect with Segments F4a and T5 (see Figure 4-23). The eastern portion of Segment G4 was shifted slightly to the southwest to increase the distance to a habitable structure (see Figure 4-23). Segment I4 was shifted to the southeast, increasing its length, due to engineering constraints regarding entering the Round Rock substation (see Figure 4-23). Segment F5 was modified by shifting it to the south side of Journey Parkway due to residential development and newly constructed habitable structures located within the right-of-way that would be needed for Segment F5. As a result of shifting Segment F5, the node was moved to the south; increasing the length of Segment G1 and decreasing the length of Segment R1. A node was added to the end of Segment E5, relabeling the northern portion of the segment as Segment D5 (see Figure 4-8). A portion of Segment K5 was shifted to the east so that the segment could utilize the same alignment and right-of-way as the existing 138-kV transmission line (see Figure 4-15). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-15

142 4.5.3 Deleted Segments Segments P3 and Q3 were originally proposed along Sam Bass Road. However, following the open house meetings and based on engineering constraints they were deleted from further consideration (see Figure 4-21). As a result of deleting the above mentioned segments, Segment T3 became part of Segment F3 and Segments R3 and S3 became part of Segment O3 (see Figure 4-21). HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-16

143 Insert 11x17 Figure 4-1 Preliminary Alternative Route Segments FRONT Page 1 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-17

144 Insert 11x17 Figure 4-1 Preliminary Alternative Route Segments BACK Page 1 HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-18

145 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd K ««270. K! ay ow Her J «E «E «183A ± " ) TO LL J «183A y Wa ro He Leander F «! D ««D 269!! Z5 «. " ) X5 «F «B6 «A ««î " Ý \ [ A 2243! Y5 «! C M ason Cree k B rushy Creek B ««B ««C Legend Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node! Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting! Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting A Resulting Alternative Segment Label ««A A6 «Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting L G «G «! L ««I «I «" ) ERCOT Approved Project Endpoint " Ý Cemetery î Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Place of Worship US Highway î Figure 4-2 Addition of X5; Relabel of Southern Portion of F as Y5 Following the Open House Meetings Toll Road Farm to Market Road County Road Major Road Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project Local Road Stream Pipeline Parcel Boundary 0 I 800 Feet 1,600 3/9/2016 PAGE 4-19

146 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-20

147 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «L4 Winding Oak Trl Creekview Cir Hero Way «K Ronald W Reagan Blvd «S4 «K «J «C6 «A6! «X5 «Z5 «J 2-8 «B6 Brushy Creek Ridgmar Legend!! «A «A «G "Ý [\2243 «G! Brushy Creek Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting «L «L Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment "Ý Cemetery Substation Alternative Farm to Market Road Major Road Local Road Proposed Road Stream Pipeline Parcel Boundary Figure 4-3 Rd W Windemere Addition of A6; Realignment of L; Relabel of Southern Portion of S4 as C6 and the Southern Portions of J as Z5 and B6 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

148 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-22

149 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd.-264 Old Pecan Ln Flintlock Dr Juniper Rim Rd Limestone Creek Rd «L4 [\2243 «K Creekview Cir 2-6 «M4 ««S S «S4 «K Ronald W Reagan Blvd 2-5! «R!! «Q ««Q4 P4 «Q «R «O4 «N4 «R4 «V «V «T «T ««U U! «A6 «C6! «M «M! «L «N ««P P «L «F6 «N «G6 2-8 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Substation Alternative Farm to Market Road County Road Major Road Local Road Proposed Road Stream Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-4 Addition of L4, Substation Alternative 2-6, N4, M4, P4; Relabel of Southern Portion of K as S4 and C6, Southern Portion of S as R4, Western Portion of V as Q4, Eastern Portion of R as O4 Following the Open House Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

150 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-24

151 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «O4 2-5! «N4 «S «R4 «R!! «Q ««Q4 P4 «Q «R «V «V 2-1 «T! «U «U k! «M «M! «N [\ 2243 ««P P! «Y.-175 «F6 2-8 «N «G6 «H6 Ronald W Reagan Blvd Brushy Creek «V4 «W ««W Y «T4 2-3! «X! «X «J1 Ridgmar Rd E Windemere Warfield «U4 «W4! 2-4 «O «O Sarita Dr Silver Fountain Dr Purple Moor Pass Feather Reed Dr Lyme Ridge Dr Rabbits Tail Dr Wedgescale Plume Cv Pass! «I1 «I1 «X4 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting k Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Communication Tower Substation Alternative Farm to Market Road County Road Major Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Wastewater Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-5 Addition of V4, F6 and Substation Alternative 2-8, G6; Relabel of Southern Portions of N as H6 and U4 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

152 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-26

153 «T «T! 2-1 «U «V «V 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd k! «Y «Y k Whisper Ln «W «W «T4! 2-3 «X! «X «V4 «I1 «W4 B rushy Creek «I1 «J «J1! ««K1 «H1 «H1 K1 «X4 «Y «A5 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting k Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Communication Tower Substation Alternative County Road Local Road Stream Wastewater Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-6 Addition of X4; Realignment of Y and Relabel of Southern Portion of W as T4; Realignment of I1 and relabel of Northern Portion as W4; Extension of X to Meet W4 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

154 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-28

155 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd ««I1 «I1 J «X4 Brushy Creek «Y4 «J1 Purtis Creek Ln «Z «A5 «K Creek Meadow Cv «D6! Valley View Dr «K1 «B5 «L1 «L1 Valley View Cir î «C5 «M1! Journey Pkwy «O1 ««N1 N1 Pecan Creek Dr «O1 «F5 «M1 «E5 «D5 Millbrook Cv! 1-6 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting î Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Place of Worship Substation Alternative County Road Major Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Wastewater Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-7 Addition of Y4, Z4, Substation Alternative 2-7, D6, C5; Relabel of Eastern Portion of K1 as B5; Relabel of Southern Portion of J1 as A5 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

156 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-30

157 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «C5 î «M1 «D5 Pecan Creek Dr «M1 Bull Nettle Dr Millbrook Cv M Loop ill brook «G1! Journey Pkwy «F5 Sandbur Ln Barley Rd n Stiles Middle School «E5 «R1 Ronald W Reagan Blvd «H5! ««G5 «W1 W1 ««S1 S1! ««Z1 Z1 «R1 1-1! «V1 a «V1 «V1 «X1 «Y1 «X1 «Y1 Block House Creek «L5! ««B2 B2 «U1 a ««U1 U1 Manada Trl Palominos Pass Media Dr Brushy Creek! «C2 «C2 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment n School Place of Worship î Substation Alternative Major Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Wastewater Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-8 Addition of U1a, V1a, D5, E5, H5, G5, F5; Realignment and Relabel of Southern Portion of R1 as L5; Relabel of Western Portion of M1 as F5; Extension of G1 to Meet F5 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

158 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-32

159 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «V1 a «V1! «R1 «R1 «U1 a ««U1 U1 1-1 «V1 «X1 «X1 ««Y1 Y1! «L5! Ronald W Reagan Blvd Palominos Pass Media Dr Pvr «B2 «B2 Manada Trl Caballo Ranch Blvd Little Valley Rd Colinas Verdas Rd Block House Creek Herradura Dr Camino Alemeda Pradera Path Herrero Path Madisina k Brushy Creek Valle Verde Dr Dr.-272! «F2 1-4 «C2 «C2! «G2 «F2 Moore Ln «G2 «E2 «E2! «K2 «K2 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting k Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Communication Tower Substation Alternative County Road Major Road Local Road Stream Wastewater Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-9 Realignment of B2; Extension of E2 and Reduction of F2 to Meet Shifted Substation Alternative 1-4 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

160 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-34

161 3/9/2016! W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd.-272 «L2 «L2 1-5 Moore Ln Toro Grande Blvd! ««M2 ««K2 M2 «K3 K3 «K2 Ronald W Reagan Blvd! Barnard Ln Cr Cleo Bay Dr 272 Spanish Oak Creek «J3 Cr 178 [\1431 «J3 Brushy Creek! Market St «N3 «N3 W Parmer Ln Colonial Pkwy Kobuk Dr N Vista Ridge Blvd Taku Rd Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Substation Alternative Farm to Market Road County Road Major Road Local Road Stream Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-10 Realignment of K2, N3 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

162 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-36

163 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd.-176 Guadalupe River Ln Buck Bnd Patricia Rd Fawnridge «B1 Monahans Dr Parkside Pkwy n Parkside Elementary School Garner Park Dr Fort Cobb Way Faubion Dr Whitetail Dr Buck Ln Doe Run «B1 Cho ke Canyon Ln Caddo Lake Dr Abilene Ln «E6 Dry F ork Creek «U5 Mason Cv Ashbury Rd.-175 «T1 «W5 «A2 «A2 Legend!! «A «A «T1 «T2 «A2 1-8 «V5! «D2 «D2 Perry Mayfield Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Borho Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Crest Ln Masse y Way Sapphire Loop Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment n School Substation Alternative County Road Major Road Local Road Proposed Road Stream Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Sk y v «T2 iew Way Derby Trl Lagoona Dr Vallarta Ln Aqua Ln Hermann Arterial H Geary St St Bainbridge St Castle Rock Figure 4-11 Dr Spring Canyon Trl Blue Ridge Dr Turetella Dr! Flowstone Ln Rock Shelf Ln Sto ne Forest Trl Fossilwood Way Addition of W5, E6, Substation Alternative 1-8; Relabel of Southern Portion of B1 as U5, Southern Portion of T1 as V5 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I 0 1,500 3,000 Feet 3/9/2016

164 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-38

165 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd.-175 «W5 1-8 «E6 Dry Fork Creek «T1 Perry Mayfield «V5 Dry Fork Creek! Borho ««A2 A2 «D2 ««T2 T2 «D2 Acacia Dr 1-7 «K4 k Laurel Bay Loop «I2 «J2!! «I2 «J2 «Q2 «Q2 Rock Hill Rd Hunters Lodge Dr Moss Hollow Dr Ash Glen Ln Vista Isle Dr Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting k Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Communication Tower Substation Alternative County Road Local Road Proposed Road Stream Pipeline Wastewater Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-12 Addition of Substation Alternative 1-7, Relabel of Southern Portion of D2 as K4; Realignment of T2 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

166 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-40

167 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «Q2 ««Q2 Y2! ««««R2 R2 «Y2 S2 S2.-175! S Summercrest Loop [\1431 Dry Fork Creek Sam Bass Rd «M3 «M3 «L3 «L3! «O3 «O3 Deer Trail Cir Shady Oaks Cir Stevens Trl Spanish Oak Trl Knol lwood Cir Walsh Dr Live Oak Cv Mayfield Dr Brushy Creek Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting "Ý Vivian Dr Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Farm to Market Road County Road Major Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Wastewater Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-13 Realignment of O3 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

168 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-42

169 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd Denali Pass Church Park Rd Ranch Trails Arrow Wood Rd Mcbride Ln N Saddle Ridge Dr Avery Wo ods Angus Dr Ln Knob Creek Ln Shetland Ln Shorthorn St Gloucester Dr Barzona Bnd Dr Dakota N Frontier Ln Brangus Rd Zacharys Run Galiceno Ln Driftwood Dr Shire St Buckskin Rd Williams Way Walsh Hill Trl Spanish Mustang Dr Dr Lime Kiln Cameron Cv Polar Ln W Parmer Ln Tall Cedars Rd Juniper Hills St Longhorn Acres St Arrowhead Trl Saddle Ridge Dr Riley Trl Campfire Dr Bowstring Wilderness PathBnd S Frontier Ln Bnd Buck Ridge Rd Dasher Dr Dry Gulch Bnd Lazy River Bnd Cheyenne Ln Remington Rd Raging River Rd Stiles Ln Apache Dr Turkey Path Bnd Ridgetop Bnd Twin Branch Dr Fallen Oaks Katie Ln k Dr î "Ý «N3 «N3 Brushy Creek Rd Along Creek Cv Palmbrook Dr South Brushy Creek Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting k Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Communication Tower "Ý Cemetery Place of Worship î Major Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-14 Realignment of N3 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 3/9/2016

170 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-44

171 k 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «A1 [\2243 «A1 «I5 «I5 «J5 «A1 «K5 35 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment ") Existing Substation Railroad Interstate Highway Farm to Market Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary ") Sm West ith Branch Chief Brady Substation Fork Figure 4-15 Addition of J5; Relabel of Central Portions of A1 as I5; Realignment and Relabel of Southern Portion of A1 as K5 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 3/9/2016

172 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-46

173 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «V2 «V2 C handler Branch Bass Pro Dr «X2 «X2 Round Rock Westinghouse Substation ") 35 Oakmont Dr Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node ««B3 B3 Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting [\1431! ««C3 C3 Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment ") Existing Substation Railroad Interstate Highway Farm to Market Road Major Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Parcel Boundary [\1431 University Blvd Ikea Way Figure 4-16 Realignment of X2; Extension of B3 to Meet X2 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 3/9/2016

174 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-48

175 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd [\ 1431 «B3 «B3 ««X2 X2! «C3 «C3 Onion Branch! «A3 a «A3 Legend!! «A «A «F3 «R5 Creek Bend Blvd «D3 Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting «D3 West EndPl Vibar Cv «D3 a Waimea Bnd Castle Path Andice Path Waimea Ct Napali Ct Hidden Glen Dr Native Garden Cv Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Railroad Farm to Market Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary! «E3 «E3 Sanibel Ct! ««G3 H3 ««G3 H3 Folsom Cv Figure 4-17 Addition of D3a, R5; Realignment of C3, E3, D3, H3 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

176 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-50

177 Stone Oak Dr 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd Chan dler Branch «N5 «V2 «V2 «M5 «U2 «U2! Blue Wyoming Springs Dr Ridge Dr «W2 «W2 «W2 a Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Local Road Stream Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-18 Addition of N5, Relabel of Western Portion of V2 as M5 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 3/9/2016

178 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-52

179 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «B1 «U5 «U2 «N5 «V2! U2 ««M5 Darryl St «T2 «T2! Spring Canyon Trl Foothills Trl Cantera Way Blue Ridge Dr Arroyo Bluff Ln Winding River Trl Wyoming Springs Dr «W2 a Turetella Dr Mayfield Ranch Blvd Rock Shelf Ln Flowstone Fossil Cv Stone Oak Dr Castle Rock Dr Stone Gentle Winds Chalkstone Ln Forest Trl Fossilwood Way Ln Dolomite Trl Ln Balanced Rock Pl Pine Needle Cir Mayfield Cave Trl Upper Passage Ln ««Y2 Y2 Texella Cv Adam Cv Tailfeather Dr n Chandler Oaks Elementary School «W2 «W2 Top Rock Ln Windhill Lo op Entrada Way «Z2 «O5 «Z2 E Adelanta Pl!! «Q5 «P5 «A3 «A3a «A3 [\1431 «B3 «B3 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment n School Farm to Market Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-19 Addition of W2a, O5, Q5; Relabel of Western Porton of B3 as P5; Realignment of T2 and U2; Extension of U5 to Meet T2 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 3/9/2016

180 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-54

181 Cascada 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «W2 «Z2 «Y2 «W2 a «««O5 W2 «Z2 Q5! «Y2! «P5 [\ 1431 ««B3 B3 Onion Branch Lane Angelico Ln «A3! «D3 «R5 «D3 a «D3 «A3 Alondra Way Goldenoak Cir Briar Oak Ln Wyoming Springs Dr «A3 a Covington Pl n Cactus Ranch Elementary School Dalea St Agave Loop Portulaca Dr Sawgrass Ln Desert Candle Dr «F3 «F3 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment n School Farm to Market Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-20 Addition of A3a Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

182 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-56

183 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd Cascada Lane Legend!! «A «A Alondra Way Goldenoak Briar Oak Ln Arbor Dr «O3 «O3 «A3 «A3 Stonecreek Dr Behrens Pkwy Texana Ct Pointe Pl Edgecree Tonkawa Trl Cir k Pl Sumac Ct Stonecreek Pl! «A3 a Cedar Springs Pl Crestfield Pl «P3 Dry Fork Creek Fox Hollow Covington «R3 Arb or Ct Echowood Pl! Pl Wyoming Springs Dr «S3 «Q3 n!! «T3 ««U3 U3 Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting Cactus Ranch Elementary School Dalea St Mirasol Loop Charolais Ct Cross AgaveLoop Salorn Nolina Ln Way Sam Bass Rd k Creek Trl k Portulaca Dr î Mirasol Dr «F3! «F3 Bent Tree Loop Cami no Del VerdesPl «R5 Red Oak Cir Cedar Elm Ln Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Communication Tower n School Place of Worship î Farm to Market Road Major Road Local Road Stream Park Parcel Boundary Court Del Rey [\3406 «D3 Plantation Dr Bent Tree Ct «D3 a Nueltin Ct «D3 Vibar Cv Vaq uer a Ct Creek Bend Blvd Berwick Dr Wood Glen Dr Hidden Glen Dr Chatelle Dr Whitehu rst Dr Kimbrook Woo Onion Resn d ston ic k Falkirk Dr Dr D r Savannah Dr White Oak Loop Figure 4-21 Branch Dr Henley Dr Woods Blvd Realignment of F3; Removal of P3, Q3; Combination of R3 and S3 with O3; Combination of T3 with F3 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 3/9/2016

184 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-58

185 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd ««P3!! «R3 «Q3 «««F3 F3 O3 S3! «T3 «U3 Spindletop Ter Dry Fork Creek «U3 ««N3 N3 Sea Ash Cir! Cross «Z3! Tiffany Trl Creek Trl k Brushy Creek î Hairy Man Rd [\3406 Creek Bend Cir Wild Horse Ln Bent Tree Dr Cedar Elm Ln Brokenshoe Dr Foxfire Dr Foxfire Cv Plantation Dr Red Oak Cir Ln Zimmerman Bent Tree Ct Sam Bass Rd Ryon Ln Pena Cv Bent Tree Loop hoe Cir Hors e s Creek Bend Blvd Savannah Dr Loop WhiteOak Grove Dr î Woods Blvd k Overcup Dr Cedar Bend Dr! «E4 «E4 «A4 «A4 ««D4 D4 Bar Harbor Bnd Fern Bluff Ave Ironweed Run Niagara Falls Ter Rosebud Pl Brightwater Blvd Whitewater Cv n «B4 Fern Bluff Elementary School Wyoming Springs Dr «B4 Cardinal Ln Owl Ct «B4 a Starling Dr Quail Falcon Dr Canary Ct Oaklands Dr Ln Sparrow Dr Wren Ct Blue Bird Ct Bobwh ite Ct Oakwood Blvd Hawk Ct Parrot Trl Robin Trl! Mockingbird Dr «S5 «F4 a «F4 «F4 Blue Spring Cir Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting k Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Communication Tower n School Place of Worship î Farm to Market Road Major Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-22 Addition of B4a; Realignment of U3, A4, D4; Combination of Z3 with B4; Relabel of Southern Portion of D4 as S5 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I ,600 Feet 3/9/2016

186 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-60

187 î 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «A4 «A4 k! Hermitage Dr Sam Bass Rd Hunters Trl Hollow Tree Blvd Lantern Lig ht Dr Brushy Creek «E4 ««I3 I3 «D4 Pearl Cv Rusty Nail Loop Sylvia Ln «E4 «B4 a «! «S5 B4 «D4! «H4 «H4 «T5! «I4 «G4 «G4 Round Rock! ")! «I4! ««J4 J4 Peachtree Valley Dr Robin Trl î «F4 a î Parrot Trl Mockingbird Dr Oaklands Dr ««F4 F4 Blue Spring Cir Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting ") k î ERCOT Approved Project Endpoint Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Communication Tower Place of Worship Major Road Local Road Stream Park Parcel Boundary Figure 4-23 Addition of F4a, T5; Realignment of F4 to Meet T5; Realignment of I4; Realignment of G4; Shortening of H4 to Meet T5 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I Feet 3/9/2016

188 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-62

189 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «H «H î ")± 183A 183A Woodview Dr E Woodview Dr TOLL Legend! Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting î Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Place of Worship US Highway Toll Road Local Road Stream Parcel Boundary Figure 4-24 Realignment of H Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project! «A «A Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting I Feet 3/9/2016

190 (This page left blank intentionally.) HOU (PER-02) LCRA (3/24/2016) DW PAGE 4-64

191 3/9/2016 W:\Enviro_Projects\135610_Leander_RoundRock\DD\GIS\Apps\EA\Leander_RR_Figure4-2_to_25_Change_Sheets.mxd «O! ««H1 H1 «O «E1 î «C1 «C1 «E1! 2-2! «H «H E Crystal Falls Pkwy «D1 «D1 Ronald W Reagan Blvd «F1 «F1 î.-177! «G1 «G1 Legend!! «A «A Revised or New Alternative Segment Unchanged Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Removed Portion of Preliminary Alternative Segment Shown at Open House Meeting Revised or New Alternative Segment Node Unchanged Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Preliminary Alternative Segment Node Shown at Open House Meeting Resulting Alternative Segment Label Preliminary Alternative Segment Label Shown at Open House Meeting î Habitable Structure within 300 Feet of a Primary Segment Place of Worship Substation Alternative County Road Major Road Local Road Stream Pipeline Parcel Boundary Figure 4-25 Realignment of D1 Following the Open House Meetings Leander-Round Rock 138-kV Transmission Line Project I Feet 3/9/2016